From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-54154-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82047138010 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04BF4E0521; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FF4E0504 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so1702442obb.40 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=z7JG4QILZROY6LNHn2nIZCV23RqNe74DmTpHWyHEB30=; b=yWDa/j6HgbGyYrUvagcuPrgYHjja2A/trI0PWh1JYeakMHw1gAlHFIyViaXWFPWU0C eXuykxLohXFvCuMJqiLfdSKCB6D/vhoOj5/SrhY9XmQh6CGk282nmU0KqPGubmaWn1f1 2jx0I5KTdXE4fn/i08n2nq86uJ8VJiuEfbCDunJEbF32a8dOhVfEcNrbCll5EopOvEsP segI2iX7WLEBsSx4rd5bUNwXhQMWlyIkFjlmxv7ii5zvFeUlpcqZz1UJuW72zZUQ0X8q 8sjcBmUZ2cpX1j2oqKQP5K2eXH3A5J7IY5wBmVrqfqkXNdZU24dFyG3P/+uTII8+3XZp prPA== Received: by 10.60.0.132 with SMTP id 4mr4493126oee.69.1345828212664; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-95-170.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.95.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e9sm7181247oee.12.2012.08.24.10.10.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com> Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:10:10 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:10:10 -0500 From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: OpenRC network provides revisited Message-ID: <20120824171010.GA27765@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> 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="KsGdsel6WgEHnImy" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 2a90bf56-6ed8-46e8-aafd-9c9016830286 X-Archives-Hash: 79880da508d04a23957c51f6dc91c9be --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline All, bugs like this one [1] are making me question the net/lo provides again, and I want to know what everyone thinks. First, do we need a provide for the loopback at all? I do not know of any scenario in which a linux or *bsd system will not have an active loopback interface. If we just make sure that the loopback interface comes up in the boot runlevel, we should be good right? The second question this bug brings up is whether services should "need" or "use" net. Remember that the "need" dependency will try to run the needed service even if it is in init.d but not in a runlevel. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425130 --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlA3tXIACgkQblQW9DDEZTjnKQCeNk9dXrson2PYasOHeyA27Z0x /CEAnR/Z4IzrF/7wN/naR0Rwc9hCcYOm =h+79 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy--