From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DCD13827E for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D54DE0C1E; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DBA0E08EA for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.61] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steev) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C14233F53C for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1386671491.1145.24.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:31:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <52A2B788.3040409@gentoo.org> <20131208222552.GA22567@linux1> <52A5D89A.4080506@gentoo.org> <52A62062.9030109@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9cc8af60-4302-4590-86a3-0044eabf37b2 X-Archives-Hash: 7085fbfb17a84d1b9b556bae29defe0b On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: > > I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by > > default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as > > networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a > > stage3 on a device and then access it from the network? > > Hit your head on the wall because it doesn't contain a kernel? > Stage3s in general aren't functional systems. You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here. An ARM device can be booted with the kernel over networking (or even via usb, as is the case with most Android devices) and rootfs on local storage. Just because x86/amd64 doesn't do it, doesn't mean others can't/don't. What exactly is missing from a stage3 aside from a kernel? At this point on most ARM devices, it goes like this: extract stage3 edit inittab (and if needed) securetty create net.eth0 & symlink it to the default runlevel, along with openssh(assuming headless system) copy your kernel & modules into their proper places (if needed) put sdcard into arm device, watch it magically boot and work What you're proposing is: extract stage3 install qemu (assuming you don't have it yet) mount dev/proc chroot emerge a-network-manager set password (might as well, since you're chrooted) vim inittab nano inittab (and if needed) securetty exit chroot unmount dev/proc copy kernel & momdules to their proper places put sdcard into arm device, watch it magically boot and work Why exactly is the latter one better? the emerge a-network-manager step would be far faster on the device itself, even the RPi. I plan to look into the SUSE Qemu fork, as they've supposedly sped it up immensely (iirc it takes about a week to build gcc according to armin76 for aarch64) but even then, that would be a hack as their patches may or may not have been sent upstream - and they may be aarch64 specific and arm could still be slow as balls. So remember, just because your laptop/desktop can't do awesome stuff, doesn't mean other devices can't :)