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 F0A311381F3 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:10:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D673E0A85; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5035DE0A64 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id aq17so2908351iec.37 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VSrGT8bM874E+oCQ5jW8Fokl4njFbKPyYECQpcEDMXg=; b=aKSWC9g5HlyIGuGCdUwcgEQ1pqIlR+UbGLwe1ciS7iP6FKwDShkhfhLRfkA4AmBg45 Lzl0KpURJuNP1W2PII4Q///nPhFVuEbPn4UEeKsczRr0ujZ0WWToQD40iWuWcd/imcx3 94+VBnCOKqCqHEwgvTY7uA7YNx+FY9/QyAuGR0TgYkV8VWwsmywh9YM0mUfbFN1dBVAe C2d9ErtG6gn9XF2C8VUEI8IkC4hbiHER1w0d+SmKhJz0t7UoZGovPYrO4vtsDFfEZvd5 M9nfHeMPZMXF9nwRbwcXk/T8mwmV6bBCzqYhLA7i8DRKHm484Tra2ADq+QclkCFgidxq /WyQ== X-Received: by 10.42.65.75 with SMTP id k11mr19442442ici.26.1366852227612; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wn10sm31003395igb.2.2013.04.24.18.10.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:10:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:10:23 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC Message-ID: <20130425011023.GB3133@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20130424161606.GA1607@linux1> <51780F2D.7060007@gentoo.org> <20130424172323.GB2323@linux1> <201304241334.37807.vapier@gentoo.org> <20130424175407.GA2404@linux1> <20130424223446.GA12947@waltdnes.org> <20130424231701.GA3133@linux1> <51786B9C.9070607@gentoo.org> 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-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51786B9C.9070607@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 48ae12bf-3b22-4f65-995f-78a86b044970 X-Archives-Hash: 03e19cdeb387d7c4c9c17d60c096ad88 --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 07:32:44PM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > On 04/24/2013 07:17 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:34:46PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:16:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > >> > >>> Considering our default configuration ships sshd (an argument we don't > >>> need to rehash here), it seems a bit silly to not ship networking > >>> support by default. I'd rather not do it as part of the system set, > >>> though that would be consistent with what we're doing with ssh, and it > >>> is still override-able. > >> To handle the various possible cases, maybe we need a "virtual/net" = as > >> part of the system set, which can be satisfied by either oldnet or > >> newnet or whatever. The install ISO will have a basic working network > >> stack (IPV4+IPV6). After the initial install, the admin can do > >> whatever. Maybe even invoke package.provided. > >=20 > > This would actually be cleaner than a bogus dependency in OpenRC. > > I would probably call it virtual/network-manager though. > >=20 > You can't call it virtual/network-manager, that calls to mind, you know, > net-misc/networkmanager. That's just too confusing imho. I wouldn't > object to virtual/net, or pretty much anything else that isn't > confusing. The net scripts are not a network manager, networkmanager, > wicd, even wpa_supplicant would be things I would consider to be network > managers. But the oldnet scripts do run wpa_supplicant, dhcp clients, etc, for each interface they manage. Newnet doesn't even try that, it just manages static interfaces and assumes that you will use a dhcp client or something like wpa_supplicant in standalone mode to control your interfaces. William --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlF4gn8ACgkQblQW9DDEZTjVkwCfcnksZq4kwl2cBIyzsYgF8UkB HvAAmgMLdahq2f0XoATlGpGXhOgy8XEr =c9gC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5--