From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-25438-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1ICLbQ-0006oK-Va
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:31:01 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6LKU48O008278;
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:30:05 GMT
Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6LKSExg005966
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:28:14 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:fee1::f20b:aaff:fe00:2] (uberpc.marples.name [IPv6:fee1::f20b:aaff:fe00:2])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C815190038
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:28:14 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
From: Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <20070721202224.GA16772@eric.schwarzvogel.de>
References: <1185028563.2490.22.camel@uberpc.marples.name>
	 <20070721202224.GA16772@eric.schwarzvogel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Gentoo
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:28:14 +0100
Message-Id: <1185049694.2490.50.camel@uberpc.marples.name>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 115563e5-b8cc-4cda-86e2-bd308be2e0f1
X-Archives-Hash: ac26e767f7b990338167d35470225e66

On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Is there a common bug to report snags to? I've hit one:
> /etc/init.d/net.eth0 used to be a symlink to net.lo. After
> installing, it was gone (I figure it went with baselayout-1).
> Luckily, I have direct console access, otherwise the machine
> would have been gone after the reboot. Definitely something to
> yell about during merging.

We don't ship with net.eth0 because there is no guarantee an interface
called eth0 exists. net.lo (net.lo0 in *BSDs) always exists so we just
ship that.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list