From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-38060-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1MxmsR-0001lA-At
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:17:43 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F429E07FB;
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.123])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE38E07FB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from linux1.localdomain ([76.183.49.63])
by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
id <20091013191741919.YMGD16663@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com>
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:17:41 +0000
Received: by linux1.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7FC2143C03; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:41 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:41 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree
Message-ID: <20091013191741.GA8178@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <200910091957.09193.zzam@gentoo.org>
<8b4c83ad0910100622u502a69bdy6a9aaca18304cd48@mail.gmail.com>
<200910102230.07124.zzam@gentoo.org>
<200910131823.39417.hwoarang@gentoo.org>
<20091013181618.GA7940@linux1>
<4AD4E951.8020606@avtomatika.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AD4E951.8020606@avtomatika.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Archives-Salt: 35dd880a-2a91-4baa-b3cf-11b3d6e3f9ba
X-Archives-Hash: d9c1370208d55f33cd0ce4fc83e3b41b
--J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break=
=20
> stuff on significant percent of other users.
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting,=20
> since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any=20
> shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of=
=20
> new openrc...
=20
The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which
still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there
being a regression. A regression means that something worked before,
but it doesn't now, and that is not the case if you accept the defaults.
If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
there is a major regression and the package should be masked. On the
other hand, if the new network scripts do not work, I don't see that as
a show stopper. Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
the ebuild, unless I am missing something. If I am, definitely let me
know.
--=20
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@gentoo.org
--J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkrU0lUACgkQblQW9DDEZTjgawCfSHlF0Nrh/XS9HBafyNLIqKK+
ipIAoKJc5VOX28mOhy3WG0vOhYzJHgcw
=mSDN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf--