On 2016-05-10 15:35, Bert Vermeulen wrote: > Hi all, > > The iperf package appears to be unmaintained, the maintainers directing > people to iperf3 instead (see https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/). > > There is a fork of the original iperf package that's seeing some > maintenance, named iperf2: https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/ > > However iperf3 is in LEDE as well, and works perfectly fine. It is a full > code rewrite of iperf, and appears to be (mostly?) cmdline-compatible. > > I see no reason to keep both: iperf3 is the better project here. > > Does anyone have a compelling reason to keep iperf around? This would mean > switching to the iperf2 project -- either way the original needs to go. I'd suggest switching the project to iperf2, keeping the package name and dropping the non-multi-threaded variant.
- Felix _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
