On Wednesday 24 April 2013 19:17:01 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.
> 
> This would actually be cleaner than a bogus dependency in OpenRC.
> I would probably call it virtual/network-manager though.
> 
> Are there any issues with putting together  a virtual like this and
> adding it to @system?

you've only talked about moving out "oldnet" which means "newnet" remains in 
openrc.  that is technically a provider of virtual/network-init and we're back 
where we started: the standard Gentoo network init scripts aren't pulled in.

what providers exactly would you see live in such a virtual ?

if we do choose to go the virtual route (i don't see value here), i don't 
think the transitional phase can start there.  if anything other than the 
standard Gentoo network scripts are provided, then it means people will end up 
with a broken system as portage won't bother installing it.  network-
manager/wpa_supplicant/etc... are pretty common.
-mike