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 78D121381F3 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CD31E0A69; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:41:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.schwarzvogel.de (skade.schwarzvogel.de [144.76.18.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914EDE0A45 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klausman by mail.schwarzvogel.de with local (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1UVeDT-000FXn-Ow for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:41:15 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:41:15 +0200 From: Tobias Klausmann To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC Message-ID: <20130426084115.GC57236@skade.schwarzvogel.de> 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> <20130424183025.GA2477@linux1> <20130425210105.GB1479@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130425210105.GB1479@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: Tobias Klausmann X-Archives-Salt: 7e0670ee-4e3c-4c53-861f-cbd08e5406f0 X-Archives-Hash: 6d7fc5751fe16c59f60bea3a3ac05f34 Hi! On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Steven J. Long wrote: > Thanks, that sounds reasonable: one minor nitpick, though. Could you not > call it 'stdnet'? Since from all the other discussion it appears like this > is not going away soon for the vast majority of users, but simply being > maintained as another package, which makes sense. And it is the standard Gentoo > networking setup. > > That way, 'newnet' is clearly a more modern variant, but no-one's disparaging > the traditional setup, which is after all, still the default. +1 It is something that had me puzzled for quite a while. Was I supposed to migrate? Was the current somehow broken? I'm still not quite sure what newnet does that oldnet doesn't, or why somebody felt it was necessary to make a new package (and no, let's not discuss that here). Whatever it is, ideally, it would reflected in the name(s). And package descriptions. Regards, Tobias