[gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Marius Mauch]

Hi,

what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
(default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on their
systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their network
config, but why should that impose it on people not using it (e.g. I
only need it on one of my three boxes)? 
Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.

Marius

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Wolfram Schlich]

* Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> [2003-08-23 21:09]:
> Hi,
> 
> what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
> (default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
> because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
> removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on their
> systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their network
> config, but why should that impose it on people not using it (e.g. I
> only need it on one of my three boxes)? 
> Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.

dhcpcd != dhcpd, just in case you got it wrong.

Anyway, if you didn't ;), I'd say dhcpcd is worth keeping in the
system profile because I think it's "universal". It doesn't hurt the
non-dhcp users. Imagine you have just installed Gentoo on a notebook.
You have set it up at home where you aren't using dhcp. But then you
go to some location where you just need dhcp because otherwise you
cannot use the network. What would you do when you'd discover there's
no dhcpcd installed yet? Well, of course you know it better next time,
but I think it's nicer when it's just there by default :)
-- 
Wolfram Schlich; Friedhofstr. 8, D-88069 Tettnang; +49-(0)178-SCHLICH

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

> Anyway, if you didn't ;), I'd say dhcpcd is worth keeping in the
> system profile because I think it's "universal". It doesn't hurt the
> non-dhcp users. Imagine you have just installed Gentoo on a notebook.
> You have set it up at home where you aren't using dhcp. But then you
> go to some location where you just need dhcp because otherwise you
> cannot use the network. What would you do when you'd discover there's
> no dhcpcd installed yet? Well, of course you know it better next time,
> but I think it's nicer when it's just there by default :)

A valid point, but I thought that was what we have Mandrake for...

//Daniel Armyr

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se	f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505	+46 8 8 31 52 17	
113 59 Stockholm	
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Wolfram Schlich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 989 bytes --]

* Daniel Armyr <daniel.armyr@home.se> [2003-08-23 22:28]:
> > Anyway, if you didn't ;), I'd say dhcpcd is worth keeping in the
> > system profile because I think it's "universal". It doesn't hurt the
> > non-dhcp users. Imagine you have just installed Gentoo on a notebook.
> > You have set it up at home where you aren't using dhcp. But then you
> > go to some location where you just need dhcp because otherwise you
> > cannot use the network. What would you do when you'd discover there's
> > no dhcpcd installed yet? Well, of course you know it better next time,
> > but I think it's nicer when it's just there by default :)
> 
> A valid point, but I thought that was what we have Mandrake for...

Argh :-P
Why not remove "hdparm" as well from the system profile, because lots
of people are using SCSI drives... or "openssh" because lots of people
don't log in remotely over networks... well.
-- 
Wolfram Schlich; Friedhofstr. 8, D-88069 Tettnang; +49-(0)178-SCHLICH

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

> Argh :-P
> Why not remove "hdparm" as well from the system profile, because lots
> of people are using SCSI drives... or "openssh" because lots of people
> don't log in remotely over networks... well.

Absolutely. As long as the manual is well written so that one can emerge it, or there is some other method of finding which programs one needs for a specific setup. 

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se	f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505	+46 8 8 31 52 17	
113 59 Stockholm	
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What about PPPoE? I don't think that hurts people who don't use it either? 
Maybe include some basic dialup tools at the same time?
IMO, stuff in system should be what is actually required... If it included 
things that were common for a particular installation, then there would 
likely be more than just default-*, and if I'm wrong about what system should 
be for, let me know because it would mean I should probably be using a new 
profile for InGen instead of making a custom automated etc-update to protect 
InGen's make.conf...

On Saturday 23 August 2003 07:20 pm, Wolfram Schlich wrote:
> * Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> [2003-08-23 21:09]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
> > (default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
> > because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
> > removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on their
> > systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their network
> > config, but why should that impose it on people not using it (e.g. I
> > only need it on one of my three boxes)?
> > Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.
>
> dhcpcd != dhcpd, just in case you got it wrong.
>
> Anyway, if you didn't ;), I'd say dhcpcd is worth keeping in the
> system profile because I think it's "universal". It doesn't hurt the
> non-dhcp users. Imagine you have just installed Gentoo on a notebook.
> You have set it up at home where you aren't using dhcp. But then you
> go to some location where you just need dhcp because otherwise you
> cannot use the network. What would you do when you'd discover there's
> no dhcpcd installed yet? Well, of course you know it better next time,
> but I think it's nicer when it's just there by default :)

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/R/OJZl/BHdU+lYMRAsK6AJ9rUWSacL79O8dedGdhozAvLoy2ZQCggOcv
vpUcrXiZg0Y1rW69/MEXrzc=
=VsLj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[A. Craig West]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Luke-Jr wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> What about PPPoE? I don't think that hurts people who don't use it either? 
> Maybe include some basic dialup tools at the same time?
> IMO, stuff in system should be what is actually required... If it included 
> things that were common for a particular installation, then there would 
> likely be more than just default-*, and if I'm wrong about what system should 
> be for, let me know because it would mean I should probably be using a new 
> profile for InGen instead of making a custom automated etc-update to protect 
> InGen's make.conf...

You bring up too good points. What, exactly, is the definition of system? If
it is 'everything you need to have a network connected box, so you can go
get anything else you need" then I DO think PPPoE should be in it, and maybe
ppp or whatever is current in the way of dial-up. They are both quite
equivalent to dhcpcd, and neither is all that big, I don't think. The real
question is, what is System?

-- 
Craig West         Ph: (416) 666-1645	|  It's not a bug,
acwest-sig@craigwest.net              	|  It's a feature...

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
"A. Craig West" <acwest-gentoo-dev@craigwest.net> wrote:


> You bring up too good points. What, exactly, is the definition of
> system? If it is 'everything you need to have a network connected box,
> so you can go get anything else you need" then I DO think PPPoE should
> be in it, and maybe ppp or whatever is current in the way of dial-up.
> They are both quite equivalent to dhcpcd, and neither is all that big,
> I don't think. The real question is, what is System?

Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible? Or
perhaps LSB?  If others want minimalism, let them create their own
profiles?(Its not difficult. really).

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Alec Berryman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:59, Spider wrote:
> Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible? Or
> perhaps LSB?  If others want minimalism, let them create their own
> profiles?(Its not difficult. really).

Some interesting programs I found under the "Commands & Utilities"
section of the LSB
(http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB.html#TOCCOMMAND):

crontab
egrep & fgrep
lpr
make
man
rsync
tar

Note that the LSB does not include bzip.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1123 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:22 -0500
Alec Berryman <alec@lorax.wox.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:59, Spider wrote:
> > Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible?
> > Or perhaps LSB?  If others want minimalism, let them create their
> > own profiles?(Its not difficult. really).
> 
> Some interesting programs I found under the "Commands & Utilities"
> section of the LSB
> (http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB.html#TOCC
> OMMAND):
> 
> crontab
> egrep & fgrep
> lpr
> make
> man
> rsync
> tar
> 
> Note that the LSB does not include bzip.
No, but portage does in any case ;)

But,  Am I the only one who sees an advantage in moving the default
profiles to LSB compliance, and providing an alternated "light" one for
the cases that want them? (heck, if you dislike dhcpcd I'm pretty sure
you don't want the bloat of glibc either, go for uclibc.  ;) but sarcasm
aside,  the suggestion is serious.

//Spider



-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Sunday 24 August 2003 18:44, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:22 -0500

> > lpr
>
> But,  Am I the only one who sees an advantage in moving the default
> profiles to LSB compliance, and providing an alternated "light" one for
> the cases that want them? (heck, if you dislike dhcpcd I'm pretty sure
> you don't want the bloat of glibc either, go for uclibc.  ;) but sarcasm
> aside,  the suggestion is serious.

Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example lpr does 
not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer takes configuring 
anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Alec Berryman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:16, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > lpr
> Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example lpr does 
> not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer takes configuring 
> anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system

I know there's already been one anti-Mandrake comment in this thread,
but they have an 'lsb' package that depends on all of the LSB
components.  It is optional but recommended if I remember correctly. 
Perhaps that would be easier to maintain than a fully-LSB-compliant
profile.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example lpr does 
> not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer takes configuring 
> anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system

Just curious, but where is the system profile defined?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]

On Sunday 24 August 2003 20:55, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example lpr
> > does not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer takes
> > configuring anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system
>
> Just curious, but where is the system profile defined?

/etc/make.profile is a link to one of the profiles in /usr/portage/profiles

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Sunday 24 August 2003 20:55, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> 
>>Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example lpr
>>>does not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer takes
>>>configuring anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system
>>
>>Just curious, but where is the system profile defined?
> 
> 
> /etc/make.profile is a link to one of the profiles in /usr/portage/profiles

That's what I thought. There's one thing that confused me, though. In 
/usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4/packages there is the line:

 >=x11-base/xfree-4.1.0-r12

Why would X be in the system class?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Marius Mauch]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:05:10 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@technaut.darktalker.net> wrote:

> That's what I thought. There's one thing that confused me, though. In 
> /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4/packages there is the line:
> 
>  >=x11-base/xfree-4.1.0-r12
> 
> Why would X be in the system class?

It is not, read the comments at the top if the packages file. This line
only masks all xfree versions below 4.1.0-r12.

Marius

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:05:10 -0500
> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@technaut.darktalker.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>That's what I thought. There's one thing that confused me, though. In 
>>/usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4/packages there is the line:
>>
>> >=x11-base/xfree-4.1.0-r12
>>
>>Why would X be in the system class?
> 
> 
> It is not, read the comments at the top if the packages file. This line
> only masks all xfree versions below 4.1.0-r12.

Is this the file that actually defines what is installed when one does 
'emerge system'?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:05:10 -0500
>> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@technaut.darktalker.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's what I thought. There's one thing that confused me, though. In 
>>> /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4/packages there is the line:
>>>
>>> >=x11-base/xfree-4.1.0-r12
>>>
>>> Why would X be in the system class?
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not, read the comments at the top if the packages file. This line
>> only masks all xfree versions below 4.1.0-r12.
> 
> 
> Is this the file that actually defines what is installed when one does 
> 'emerge system'?

Nevermind. I actually just read *all* the comments at the top of that file.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

> Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible? Or
> perhaps LSB?  If others want minimalism, let them create their own
> profiles?(Its not difficult. really).

I don't have a problem with that argument in principle, but I don't know
what POSIX or LSB requires.  Can somebody provide a comparison against
our current default profile (noting that python is _not_ negotiable
*Grin*)?

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

*multiple replies below*

On Sunday 24 August 2003 08:59 am, Spider wrote:
> Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible? Or
> perhaps LSB?  If others want minimalism, let them create their own
> profiles?(Its not difficult. really).

Oh no... That means 'rpm' is going to be in system?!?! :-/


On Sunday 24 August 2003 04:32 pm, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Some interesting programs I found under the "Commands & Utilities"
> section of the LSB
> (http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB.html#TOCCOMMAND
>):
>
> crontab
Following the installation guide, this will be installed. To include it in 
system would mean the install guide would have to install the cron app before 
system, which may or may not work.
> egrep & fgrep
grep provides both of these. egrep is short for grep -e... not sure what fgrep 
is.
> lpr
See comment about cron implementations. CUPS provides 'lpr', and I'm sure the 
non-CUPS printing stuff probably does too.
> make
This is likely already in system...
> man
Ok, this would be a reason to include 'man', but are man-pages required by the 
LSB?
> rsync
Surprised to see rsync... Except for Gentoo, does anyone really use this on a 
common basis?
> tar
Probably already in system also.
>
> Note that the LSB does not include bzip.
Then the LSB is obsolete. =p
Seriously, though, this is probably because bzip has it's own custom license 
which some GNU/Linux distributions might not want to require. As it is, a 
normal desktop Gentoo system requires accepting around 14 or 15 licenses.


On Sunday 24 August 2003 06:40 pm, Alec Berryman wrote:
> I know there's already been one anti-Mandrake comment in this thread,
> but they have an 'lsb' package that depends on all of the LSB
> components.  It is optional but recommended if I remember correctly.
> Perhaps that would be easier to maintain than a fully-LSB-compliant
> profile.
Or, more like what Mandrake does and perhaps better, have a 'lsb' package 
which simply DEPENDs on all LSB-required applications. This would be better 
than another profile, IMO.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/SX1qZl/BHdU+lYMRAtwOAJ4rYGXw6fRkxG+KMkwQ2IqPgCbg2wCeIcl2
tHlw7uvfF5isCZoV9awX/pY=
=7prV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Stewart Honsberger]

Marius Mauch wrote:

> what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
[...]

I agree completely. I maintain several Gentoo workstations that use 
PPPoE, static IPs, or ISC's DHCP server/client. On only a scant handfull 
of workstations do I use dhcpcd.

I imagine with the popularity of SOHO ADSL, statically configured LANs 
et al. dhcpcd is rather useless to a large percentage of our userbase.

Perhaps it could/should be relegated to the cron / syslog / kernel 
section of the install guide - eg, another optional component after the 
system is merged.

I, for one, have always advocated that the base system be just that - 
enough to make the system useable upon first boot. Enough to allow root 
to log in and merge functionality and nothing more.

Besides, then we can start a running tally; "Three years without an 
exploit in our base install!" (Apologies to Theo)

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
http://blackdeath.snerk.org/
"Capitalists, by nature, organize to protect themselves.
-- Geeks, by nature, resist organizaion."


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Kevyn Shortell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1604 bytes --]

Well I for one would be completely SOL without it, my isp is sane and
doesn't use PPPoE thank god. They do however use DHCP. And in case your
wondering who my ISP is, it's Comcast Cable, which probably has more
users than SOHO DSL. It isn't as if they are a little ISP.

Also, every wireless gateway on the planet uses DHCP, same goes for
basic firewall boxes.

I don't see the need to tell all those users that they have to do
additional things in order to get thier box on the net during the
install process. Do you? It doesn't hurt anything to leave it.

my .02 cents...

Kevyn

On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 12:29, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
> > what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
> [...]
> 
> I agree completely. I maintain several Gentoo workstations that use 
> PPPoE, static IPs, or ISC's DHCP server/client. On only a scant handfull 
> of workstations do I use dhcpcd.
> 
> I imagine with the popularity of SOHO ADSL, statically configured LANs 
> et al. dhcpcd is rather useless to a large percentage of our userbase.
> 
> Perhaps it could/should be relegated to the cron / syslog / kernel 
> section of the install guide - eg, another optional component after the 
> system is merged.
> 
> I, for one, have always advocated that the base system be just that - 
> enough to make the system useable upon first boot. Enough to allow root 
> to log in and merge functionality and nothing more.
> 
> Besides, then we can start a running tally; "Three years without an 
> exploit in our base install!" (Apologies to Theo)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Stewart Honsberger]

Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> Well I for one would be completely SOL without it, my isp is sane and
> doesn't use PPPoE thank god. They do however use DHCP. And in case your
> wondering who my ISP is, it's Comcast Cable, which probably has more
> users than SOHO DSL. It isn't as if they are a little ISP.

In Canada, DSL accounts for atleast half, perhaps even greater number of 
all broadband subscribers.

> Also, every wireless gateway on the planet uses DHCP, same goes for
> basic firewall boxes.
> 
> I don't see the need to tell all those users that they have to do
> additional things in order to get thier box on the net during the
> install process. Do you? It doesn't hurt anything to leave it.

During the install process I would expect to have dhcpcd and pppoe 
support included. We weren't talking about the install process, we were 
talking about the base system.

As for what it 'hurts', nothing, per se. The only effects I was 
referring to is runaway packages in the base system profile which can 
cause problems down the road.

For example, it's better to have as minimal a base system as possible to 
minimize support and allow flexibility. Perl 5 in the base system is a 
potential issue. It's rather large, and there are a significant number 
of users who have no use for it. Its inclusion should likely be 
investigated moreso than that of dhcpcd.

FWIW, I don't feel terribly strongly one way or another with regards to 
dhcpcd.

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
http://blackdeath.snerk.org/
"Capitalists, by nature, organize to protect themselves.
-- Geeks, by nature, resist organizaion."


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Kevyn Shortell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2301 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 00:22, Stewart Honsberger wrote:

> 
> In Canada, DSL accounts for atleast half, perhaps even greater number of 
> all broadband subscribers.

I'd have to take a guess that Comcast in California has more DHCP cable
customers than Canada has broadband customers. DSL has not been rolled
out enmass in such large numbers in the United States regardless of what
the phone companies would like people to think. There are still way too
many places where it's impossible to get DSL, and will remain so for
years. And I'm not talking about out in the sticks, but litterally 25
miles from the heart of Silicon Valley...It's not important what you
have, vs what I have, but what would benefit our users the most. 

> 
> During the install process I would expect to have dhcpcd and pppoe 
> support included. We weren't talking about the install process, we were 
> talking about the base system.

I had meant to clarify that more, but the same holds true. It just makes
basic sense to have what is required to get on ANY network as part of
the base system. Do we want to force people to have to emerge it so they
can use thier laptop somewhere besides at home if they have a PPPoE
connection? 

> 
> As for what it 'hurts', nothing, per se. The only effects I was 
> referring to is runaway packages in the base system profile which can 
> cause problems down the road.

I agree that pruning the base system is probably a good idea, but why
look at basic network components that atleast half of our users require
in order to get their machine on the net?

> 
> For example, it's better to have as minimal a base system as possible to 
> minimize support and allow flexibility. Perl 5 in the base system is a 
> potential issue. It's rather large, and there are a significant number 
> of users who have no use for it. Its inclusion should likely be 
> investigated moreso than that of dhcpcd.

Yes, I would hope perl5 would be looked at more strongly than dhcpcd or
pppoe for removal from the base system =)

> FWIW, I don't feel terribly strongly one way or another with regards to 
> dhcpcd.

For me it's a basic networking component, I don't feel either should
ever be considered for removal. 

again, my .02 cents worth...

Kevyn

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Brad Laue]

Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> I'd have to take a guess that Comcast in California has more DHCP cable
> customers than Canada has broadband customers.

Bell Canada's Sympatico service started out as the driving force behind 
the development of PPPoE clients under Linux, and the past two releases 
of both Mandrake and RedHat have in fact included built-in support and 
configuration frontends that enable a user to get online with minimal 
hassle.

Re: the sanity of choosing DHCP over PPPoE, the main perceived drawback 
is the dynamic IP. This is a management issue - PPPoE is as capable of 
delivering a static IP to the user as standard PPP is. As for 
encapsulation overhead, 1meg and 3meg service render this unnoticeable 
to the user (it may perhaps be 'less efficient' from a purist 
standpoint, but these are residential connections we're talking about).

At any rate, seeing as both PPPoE and DHCP are not as universal as 
ethernet (which requires the presence of such utilities as ifconfig in 
the basic system), and are both really fast emerges, wouldn't they 
contribute to a nice small base system? They seem more reasonable 
choices than some of the other suggestions I'm seeing.

> I agree that pruning the base system is probably a good idea, but why
> look at basic network components that atleast half of our users require
> in order to get their machine on the net?

Because they're options, and options are not defaults. :P

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Kevyn Shortell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2514 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 08:09, Brad Laue wrote:

> Bell Canada's Sympatico service started out as the driving force behind 
> the development of PPPoE clients under Linux, and the past two releases 
> of both Mandrake and RedHat have in fact included built-in support and 
> configuration frontends that enable a user to get online with minimal 
> hassle.

While it's a popular favorite of Canada, I know a lot of people in the
US who aren't as fond of it as you are. And Mandrake and RedHat also
include dhcp client support. I'm not saying rip out pppoe. I'm saying we
should include what is required to get someone on the net as part of the
base system. Thats ANY network. Not just Canada's PPPoE network.

> Re: the sanity of choosing DHCP over PPPoE, the main perceived drawback 
> is the dynamic IP. This is a management issue - PPPoE is as capable of 
> delivering a static IP to the user as standard PPP is. As for 
> encapsulation overhead, 1meg and 3meg service render this unnoticeable 
> to the user (it may perhaps be 'less efficient' from a purist 
> standpoint, but these are residential connections we're talking about).

Never cared why they chose it. If you want to go the technical purist
standpoint, PPPoE is the spawn of satan. If it works for the customer
however, I don't see an issue. The whole if it works use it thing. =)
> 
> At any rate, seeing as both PPPoE and DHCP are not as universal as 
> ethernet (which requires the presence of such utilities as ifconfig in 
> the basic system), and are both really fast emerges, wouldn't they 
> contribute to a nice small base system? They seem more reasonable 
> choices than some of the other suggestions I'm seeing.

I would still have to disagree. Most places I've worked at, or school
at, still used DCHP on ethernet. I've only ever had to use PPPoE once.
Only one place I've ever worked at handed out static IP's internally to
employees, there is no need. DHCP works perfectly in that enviroment.
> 
> > I agree that pruning the base system is probably a good idea, but why
> > look at basic network components that atleast half of our users require
> > in order to get their machine on the net?
> 
> Because they're options, and options are not defaults. :P

Your right, networking is an option, I hadn't realized that. Thank you
for pointing it out. Lets just rip out ifconfig, dhcpcd, pppoe, and tell
everyone to use GRP CD's cause that fad called a network is dead. 

> 
> Brad

Kevyn

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Norberto BENSA]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
>
> I imagine with the popularity of SOHO ADSL, statically configured LANs
> et al. dhcpcd is rather useless to a large percentage of our userbase.

What's SOHO ADSL?

Thanks,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Yuri Enshin]

Marius Mauch wrote:

>Hi,
>
>what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
>(default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
>because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
>removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on their
>systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their network
>config, but why should that impose it on people not using it (e.g. I
>only need it on one of my three boxes)? 
>Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.
>
>Marius
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>  
>
Hmm... May be, extend your question?
Some users know all about linux, so no reason to include man and 
man-pages in system.
Some users never change default console font or keyboard layout, so no 
reason to include kbd or console-tools in system.
Some users have no ext2/ext3 partiotions, so no reason to include in 
system e2fsprogs.
Some users never use 'emerge sync' (only download snapshots), so no 
reason to include rsync.
Some users never use less, hdparm, fbset...
Some users have no network on computer at all, so no reason to include 
any network related programs in system.
I can continue this list.

The reason for dhcpcd *in* system, IMHO: support for dhcp client - part 
of universal, standart set of full-functional network-ready computer.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Norberto BENSA]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]

Yuri Enshin wrote:
> Some users have no ext2/ext3 partiotions, so no reason to include in
> system e2fsprogs.

18:25:59 nbensa@venkman: (~) $ qpkg -I -f /sbin/fsck
sys-apps/e2fsprogs *

Ouch!

Heh. I did "emerge -C e2fsprogs" once just to find out my system didn't boot 
anymore :-/

Regards,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This seems to be opposite of my reply I just sent :)
I would agree that man-pages (and maybe man also, but many packages depend on 
it without mentioning it in DEPEND) should probably not be in system (along 
with all other documents). In fact, it would probably be a good idea to make 
a 'man' and 'info' USE flag and only install manpages/infopages when they are 
set.
Some users may *require* the ability to change console font or keyboard layout 
to use the system (for example, if their system is weird and has a messed up 
default font or something, or if someone has a physically QWERTY keyboard, 
but uses Dvorak)
ext2/ext3 are still considered Linux native, so that may be justification for 
their inclusion in system, if not for the fact that reiserfs is a bad idea 
for a /boot partition... I wouldn't have any objection to their removal from 
system, though.
If rsync is in system, it probably should be removed. Portage could quite 
easilly just install it when the user tries to sync if need be.
hdparm, fbset may also be neccesary for system usage in some cases. I would 
agree that 'less' does not belong in system, though.
To exclude network related programs from system, one would have to modify 
baselayout to use the nonetwork initlevel by default logically, and I don't 
think that would be too simple (and might require a 'network' USE flag).


On Saturday 23 August 2003 08:34 pm, Yuri Enshin wrote:
> Hmm... May be, extend your question?
> Some users know all about linux, so no reason to include man and
> man-pages in system.
> Some users never change default console font or keyboard layout, so no
> reason to include kbd or console-tools in system.
> Some users have no ext2/ext3 partiotions, so no reason to include in
> system e2fsprogs.
> Some users never use 'emerge sync' (only download snapshots), so no
> reason to include rsync.
> Some users never use less, hdparm, fbset...
> Some users have no network on computer at all, so no reason to include
> any network related programs in system.
> I can continue this list.
>
> The reason for dhcpcd *in* system, IMHO: support for dhcp client - part
> of universal, standart set of full-functional network-ready computer.
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/R/W0Zl/BHdU+lYMRAvAHAJ93CIljUzyPAs2Mrk3XcOhcfqcX6gCgj/Be
AwTJs10N232qrdxS4XmPSUQ=
=VCT1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4054 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 01:16, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> This seems to be opposite of my reply I just sent :)
> I would agree that man-pages (and maybe man also, but many packages depend on 
> it without mentioning it in DEPEND) should probably not be in system (along 
> with all other documents). In fact, it would probably be a good idea to make 
> a 'man' and 'info' USE flag and only install manpages/infopages when they are 
> set.

Man pages is an integrate part of a system in my opinion - how anyhow
are you going to tell them to RTFM if not there :P

> ext2/ext3 are still considered Linux native, so that may be justification for 
> their inclusion in system, if not for the fact that reiserfs is a bad idea 
> for a /boot partition... I wouldn't have any objection to their removal from 
> system, though.

e2fsprogs provide /sbin/fsck ... 8)

> If rsync is in system, it probably should be removed. Portage could quite 
> easilly just install it when the user tries to sync if need be.

So we devs are going to start moaning because we have rsync installed ?

> hdparm, fbset may also be neccesary for system usage in some cases. I would 
> agree that 'less' does not belong in system, though.

Hmm, i would not agree 100% 8)

------------------------------
$ PAGER=foo man gcc
sh: line 1: foo: command not found
Error executing formatting or display command.
System command (cd /usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/man &&
(echo ".ll 11.1i"; echo ".nr LL 11.1i"; echo ".pl 1100i"; /bin/gunzip -c
'/usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/man/man1/gcc.1.gz'; echo;
echo ".pl \n(nlu+10") | /usr/bin/gtbl | /usr/bin/nroff -Tlatin1 -c
-mandoc | foo) exited with status 127.
No manual entry for gcc
-------------------------------

But then I guess man pages is not needed, right :)  Question is, is
'more' needed there - that I would say no, but then I feel 'less' is
more the default ...

> To exclude network related programs from system, one would have to modify 
> baselayout to use the nonetwork initlevel by default logically, and I don't 
> think that would be too simple (and might require a 'network' USE flag).
> 


In general the 'system' profile have everything that should be needed to
get a system functioning at a minimal level, with then a few extras that
we found to be annoying in general.  Take perl - sure its big, but
automake is a perl script ..... is automake required on a Gentoo box ?

All in all, most things in there is after careful thought - and should
be removed after 10x more of 'careful thought'.



> 
> On Saturday 23 August 2003 08:34 pm, Yuri Enshin wrote:
> > Hmm... May be, extend your question?
> > Some users know all about linux, so no reason to include man and
> > man-pages in system.
> > Some users never change default console font or keyboard layout, so no
> > reason to include kbd or console-tools in system.
> > Some users have no ext2/ext3 partiotions, so no reason to include in
> > system e2fsprogs.
> > Some users never use 'emerge sync' (only download snapshots), so no
> > reason to include rsync.
> > Some users never use less, hdparm, fbset...
> > Some users have no network on computer at all, so no reason to include
> > any network related programs in system.
> > I can continue this list.
> >
> > The reason for dhcpcd *in* system, IMHO: support for dhcp client - part
> > of universal, standart set of full-functional network-ready computer.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> - -- 
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE/R/W0Zl/BHdU+lYMRAvAHAJ93CIljUzyPAs2Mrk3XcOhcfqcX6gCgj/Be
> AwTJs10N232qrdxS4XmPSUQ=
> =VCT1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 24 August 2003 08:15 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Man pages is an integrate part of a system in my opinion - how anyhow
> are you going to tell them to RTFM if not there :P
Have the install manual suggest installation of them.
>
> > ext2/ext3 are still considered Linux native, so that may be justification
> > for their inclusion in system, if not for the fact that reiserfs is a bad
> > idea for a /boot partition... I wouldn't have any objection to their
> > removal from system, though.
>
> e2fsprogs provide /sbin/fsck ... 8)
fsck, unless I'm mistaken, merely detects the filesystem and runs 
fsck.{ext3,xfs,reiserfs,etc}. It could probably be provided by all packages 
which provide a fsck, or baselayout.
>
> > If rsync is in system, it probably should be removed. Portage could quite
> > easilly just install it when the user tries to sync if need be.
>
> So we devs are going to start moaning because we have rsync installed ?
I doubt anyone is going to whine because they have something they don't need 
installed. The reason to whine is because it's installed *by default*. rsync 
is really cool, but it doesn't really have any reason for being installed 
before the user wants it.
>
> > hdparm, fbset may also be neccesary for system usage in some cases. I
> > would agree that 'less' does not belong in system, though.
>
> Hmm, i would not agree 100% 8)
>
> ------------------------------
> $ PAGER=foo man gcc
> sh: line 1: foo: command not found
> Error executing formatting or display command.
> System command (cd /usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/man &&
> (echo ".ll 11.1i"; echo ".nr LL 11.1i"; echo ".pl 1100i"; /bin/gunzip -c
> '/usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/man/man1/gcc.1.gz'; echo;
> echo ".pl \n(nlu+10") | /usr/bin/gtbl | /usr/bin/nroff -Tlatin1 -c
> -mandoc | foo) exited with status 127.
> No manual entry for gcc
> -------------------------------
>
> But then I guess man pages is not needed, right :)  Question is, is
> 'more' needed there - that I would say no, but then I feel 'less' is
> more the default ...
>
> > To exclude network related programs from system, one would have to modify
> > baselayout to use the nonetwork initlevel by default logically, and I
> > don't think that would be too simple (and might require a 'network' USE
> > flag).
>
> In general the 'system' profile have everything that should be needed to
> get a system functioning at a minimal level, with then a few extras that
> we found to be annoying in general.  Take perl - sure its big, but
> automake is a perl script ..... is automake required on a Gentoo box ?
>
> All in all, most things in there is after careful thought - and should
> be removed after 10x more of 'careful thought'.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/SXIYZl/BHdU+lYMRAozvAJ93P3oG7v96YyD0Y0eqWsN5AhkxqwCcD3og
Ld3g9krrYTpiwDRrjg2nX5o=
=wdnR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 04:18, Luke-Jr wrote:
> >
> > > If rsync is in system, it probably should be removed. Portage could quite
> > > easilly just install it when the user tries to sync if need be.
> >
> > So we devs are going to start moaning because we have rsync installed ?
> I doubt anyone is going to whine because they have something they don't need 
> installed. The reason to whine is because it's installed *by default*. rsync 
> is really cool, but it doesn't really have any reason for being installed 
> before the user wants it.

So it is not used anymore to fetch the portage tree when a user
'emerge sync' ?


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 04:18, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sunday 24 August 2003 08:15 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Man pages is an integrate part of a system in my opinion - how anyhow
> > are you going to tell them to RTFM if not there :P
> Have the install manual suggest installation of them.

O.K.

> >
> > > ext2/ext3 are still considered Linux native, so that may be justification
> > > for their inclusion in system, if not for the fact that reiserfs is a bad
> > > idea for a /boot partition... I wouldn't have any objection to their
> > > removal from system, though.
> >
> > e2fsprogs provide /sbin/fsck ... 8)
> fsck, unless I'm mistaken, merely detects the filesystem and runs 
> fsck.{ext3,xfs,reiserfs,etc}. It could probably be provided by all packages 
> which provide a fsck, or baselayout.

Ok, and who wants to bloat now ?  I have diff filesystems on diff
partition depending on what it is used for (and I bet I am not the
only one).

I also guess you are going to rip fsck, or code a new one, and maintain
it for all ...



-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 25 August 2003 04:46 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 04:18, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Sunday 24 August 2003 08:15 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > Man pages is an integrate part of a system in my opinion - how anyhow
> > > are you going to tell them to RTFM if not there :P
> >
> > Have the install manual suggest installation of them.
>
> O.K.
>
> > > > ext2/ext3 are still considered Linux native, so that may be
> > > > justification for their inclusion in system, if not for the fact that
> > > > reiserfs is a bad idea for a /boot partition... I wouldn't have any
> > > > objection to their removal from system, though.
> > >
> > > e2fsprogs provide /sbin/fsck ... 8)
> >
> > fsck, unless I'm mistaken, merely detects the filesystem and runs
> > fsck.{ext3,xfs,reiserfs,etc}. It could probably be provided by all
> > packages which provide a fsck, or baselayout.
>
> Ok, and who wants to bloat now ?  I have diff filesystems on diff
> partition depending on what it is used for (and I bet I am not the
> only one).
>
> I also guess you are going to rip fsck, or code a new one, and maintain
> it for all ...
fsck is merely a redirector to the proper fsck.* program. There's no real 
reason it needs to be provided by a specific filesystem's package.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ShMfZl/BHdU+lYMRAuQuAJsHypZByqOGgPdmlDGcW6+bxpf9bgCggC3V
+sFB+0uq69spZOclJzw8sr0=
=d1V0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[William Hubbs]

Hi all,

My only issue with dhcpcd in system is this:

My isp is also comcast cable which uses dhcp.  I also use dhcp for my home network, so my linux box is functioning as a dhcp client (for comcast) and dhcp server (for my home network).

To get the dhcp server, you have to install the isc dhcp package.  This also includes a dhcp client (dhclient).

In other words, I have 2 dhcp clients on my system, which is not necessary.

I would vote for a virtual/dhcp-client package which could be provided by the dhcpcd package and also by the isc dhcp package to prevent this.

I'm not sure how much work this would require though to be sure that the net.* scripts in baselayout supported all of the dhcp clients gentoo supports.  What do you think?


William

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Lloyd D Budd]

Hi,

I am happy with the system profile (profile, aka the default) allowing
most people in any of the circumstances that they may encounter to be
successful.  

layperson questions:
Do depends exist such that undesirable system components cannot be
removed by individuals?
Is it difficult to remove packages from the system profile?

Cheers,
Lloyd


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Lloyd D Budd wrote:
> Do depends exist such that undesirable system components cannot be
> removed by individuals?

If you manually 'emerge -C package' to one of the packages in the system 
profile, emerge will try to re-emerge it next time your do 'emerge -uD 
system' or 'emerge -uD world'.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Marius Mauch]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:04:29 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
> (default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
> because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
> removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on
> their systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their
> network config, but why should that impose it on people not using it
> (e.g. I only need it on one of my three boxes)? 
> Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.

Ok, it seems most people like dhcpcd being part of system. Then let me
ask another question: Is there a way to get rid of packages in system
that works with world upgrades without creating my own local profile?
Making my own profile probably isn't difficult, but it needs to be
maintained. And all I want is to get rid of 2 or 3 packages that I don't
need/want to be installed.
If there is no such way maybe it should be implemented, or is there a
reason not to do it?

Marius

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1540 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 16:14, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:04:29 +0200
> Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > what's the reason for dhcpcd being in the system profile
> > (default-x86-1.4 at least, haven't checked the others)? If it's only
> > because it might be used in /etc/conf.d/net I think it should be
> > removed, as there are IMO many users who don't need/want dhcpcd on
> > their systems. I know there are a lot of people using dhcp for their
> > network config, but why should that impose it on people not using it
> > (e.g. I only need it on one of my three boxes)? 
> > Of course if I miss something obvious here please correct me.
> 
> Ok, it seems most people like dhcpcd being part of system. Then let me
> ask another question: Is there a way to get rid of packages in system
> that works with world upgrades without creating my own local profile?
> Making my own profile probably isn't difficult, but it needs to be
> maintained. And all I want is to get rid of 2 or 3 packages that I don't
> need/want to be installed.
> If there is no such way maybe it should be implemented, or is there a
> reason not to do it?
> 

The most permanent way I can think of, without updating stubs or
injecting packages all the time, is to create a stub in your portage
overlay that is a version way  bigger, say dhcpcd-10.0 and then
merge that ...


Cheers,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Sunday 24 August 2003 16:33, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
> The most permanent way I can think of, without updating stubs or
> injecting packages all the time, is to create a stub in your portage
> overlay that is a version way  bigger, say dhcpcd-10.0 and then
> merge that ...

Or you make your own profile just by using some grep's on the standard profile 
everytime you sync (with some nice alias or something)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1397 bytes --]


ok, this breaks threading but I just got a bounce due to wrong sender
address, (having mailprobs)

---
begin  quote
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:16:07 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sunday 24 August 2003 18:44, Spider wrote:
> > begin  quote
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:22 -0500
> 
> > > lpr
> >
> > But,  Am I the only one who sees an advantage in moving the default
> > profiles to LSB compliance, and providing an alternated "light" one
> > for the cases that want them? (heck, if you dislike dhcpcd I'm
> > pretty sure you don't want the bloat of glibc either, go for uclibc.
> >  ;) but sarcasm
> > aside,  the suggestion is serious.
> 
> Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example
> lpr does not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer
> takes configuring anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system


Here we can disagree, as the LSB defines lpr, it can well be just an
offline printer (print-to-file  setup) which can very well be configured
per default.

However, if we wish to include it in the basic profile or not is another
question.  I still think that doing so (or posix compliance, see thread
about bloat.)  could provide to be a benefit for the project.


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]