[gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

Hi all,

I'm splitting the thread because this is a separate subject.

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:59:56AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I do understand why Roy refer this as oldnet... but why in Gentoo do
> we keep the term old? The functionality of these script is huge, and
> is better than most distros out there. Do we want keep users out of
> it? are we going to obsolete this huge work? If we don't I suggest to
> remove the 'old' implication, to something like openrc-gentoo-net.

Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
misleading eventually.

Also, at this point, renaming it would require renaming the repository on
git.overlays.gentoo.org or fixing the ebuild.

When Robin and I etalked about the split a while back this was the best
name we could come up with unfortunately.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm splitting the thread because this is a separate subject.
>
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:59:56AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> I do understand why Roy refer this as oldnet... but why in Gentoo do
>> we keep the term old? The functionality of these script is huge, and
>> is better than most distros out there. Do we want keep users out of
>> it? are we going to obsolete this huge work? If we don't I suggest to
>> remove the 'old' implication, to something like openrc-gentoo-net.
>
> Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
> systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
> is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
> misleading eventually.

OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?

However, I do not understand how you can port it without changing the
notations... or lowering features... example: rc_net_*_provide,
rc_net_*_need, or the rc_config, rc_use, rc_net_*_provide="!net"
etc...

Do you think systemd users can understand that /etc/conf.d/net is
actually a shell script? I hope this is not going to be eliminated, as
I use it a lot.

Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1260 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
> > is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
> > misleading eventually.
> 
> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?

I don't know about "best-networking". ;-) One reason we are splitting it
out also is so it can have its own development/release cycle; the
oldnet stuff is responsible for about 1/3 of the bugs against OpenRc
right now, and it is very difficult to test because of all of the
possibilities.

> However, I do not understand how you can port it without changing the
> notations... or lowering features... example: rc_net_*_provide,
> rc_net_*_need, or the rc_config, rc_use, rc_net_*_provide="!net"
> etc...
> 
> Do you think systemd users can understand that /etc/conf.d/net is
> actually a shell script? I hope this is not going to be eliminated, as
> I use it a lot.

Robin is going to do most of it I think; I'm not exactly sure what he
has in mind.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Doug Goldstein]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
>> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
>> > is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
>> > misleading eventually.
>>
>> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
>
> I don't know about "best-networking". ;-) One reason we are splitting it
> out also is so it can have its own development/release cycle; the
> oldnet stuff is responsible for about 1/3 of the bugs against OpenRc
> right now, and it is very difficult to test because of all of the
> possibilities.

You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
gentoo-networking. Its really a shame because this dependency based
networking is really one of the real strengths of Gentoo and its
really just being given the cold shoulder. Our dependency based init
system was one of the reasons many people used Gentoo back in the day
(besides the zomg its source its faster use -O6 crowd).

In our discussions I've suggested trimming back the support in the
networking scripts from all the various options (they support 4 DHCP
clients for example) and slowly push these scripts to be installed by
the package and maintained by the package maintainer (e.g. the pump
script can be managed by the net-misc/pump maintainer and so on and so
forth). Give them a name (systemd did by calling these snippets unit
files) like OpenRC net snippets (Don't let me come up with names, I'm
not good at that part, just ask my co-workers) and maintain an "API"
for them.

>
>> However, I do not understand how you can port it without changing the
>> notations... or lowering features... example: rc_net_*_provide,
>> rc_net_*_need, or the rc_config, rc_use, rc_net_*_provide="!net"
>> etc...
>>
>> Do you think systemd users can understand that /etc/conf.d/net is
>> actually a shell script? I hope this is not going to be eliminated, as
>> I use it a lot.
>
> Robin is going to do most of it I think; I'm not exactly sure what he
> has in mind.
>
> William
>

If we lose that flexibility and configurability then just give up on
OpenRC right now cause its dead because all interesting features are
gone and it'll just become an inferior init system that needs to be
replaced.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1058 bytes --]

On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> >

> You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
> point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
> possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
> gentoo-networking. 


How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
previous discussions).  

> If we lose that flexibility and configurability then just give up on
> OpenRC right now cause its dead because all interesting features are
> gone and it'll just become an inferior init system that needs to be
> replaced.
> 

++
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 620 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2455 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 09:03:06PM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
> >> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
> >> > is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
> >> > misleading eventually.
> >>
> >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> >
> > I don't know about "best-networking". ;-) One reason we are splitting it
> > out also is so it can have its own development/release cycle; the
> > oldnet stuff is responsible for about 1/3 of the bugs against OpenRc
> > right now, and it is very difficult to test because of all of the
> > possibilities.
> 
> You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
> point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
> possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
> gentoo-networking. Its really a shame because this dependency based
> networking is really one of the real strengths of Gentoo and its
> really just being given the cold shoulder. Our dependency based init
> system was one of the reasons many people used Gentoo back in the day
> (besides the zomg its source its faster use -O6 crowd).

Nothing is being obsoleted; it is just being separated into its own
package, per robbat2's request. I have no ideahow that translates into
giving this system the cold shoulder.It just makes it possible for more
development to happen easier with it.

> In our discussions I've suggested trimming back the support in the
> networking scripts from all the various options (they support 4 DHCP
> clients for example) and slowly push these scripts to be installed by
> the package and maintained by the package maintainer (e.g. the pump
> script can be managed by the net-misc/pump maintainer and so on and so
> forth). Give them a name (systemd did by calling these snippets unit
> files) like OpenRC net snippets (Don't let me come up with names, I'm
> not good at that part, just ask my co-workers) and maintain an "API"
> for them.
 
How exactly is anything I've said stopping any of this from happening?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 August 2013 10:38, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
>> >
>
>> You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
>> point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
>> possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
>> gentoo-networking.
>
>
> How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
> the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
> previous discussions).

++

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2180 bytes --]

Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> > >
> 
> > You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
> > point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
> > possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
> > gentoo-networking. 

I thought about gentoo-networking, but that sucks in a way too because
it implies that everyone on gentoo should be using it.
 
 That's not quite right because we have at least five network stacks I
 can think of off the top of my head, and OpenRc upstream supports
 another.

- OpenRc upstream supports newnet, which I have played with, and I
  believe people on Gentoo are using successfully.
  - what we have been calling the oldnet stack, which most gentoo users
	have been using.
	- dhcpcd in standalone mode.
	- wicd
	- NetworkManager
	- badvpn

> How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
> the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
> previous discussions).  

Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo? General?
Generic?"

> > If we lose that flexibility and configurability then just give up on
> > OpenRC right now cause its dead because all interesting features are
> > gone and it'll just become an inferior init system that needs to be
> > replaced.
> > 
> 
> ++

As I have said before, none of this is an attempt to kill or deprecate
anything. It is just re-arranging things by moving the old gentoo
network stack into its own package. There are no plans to stop you from
using it if you want to use it. There is definitely nothing being said
here about the state of OpenRc in general.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-08-04, o godz. 15:37:50
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
> 
> > How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
> > the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
> > previous discussions).  
> 
> Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo? General?
> Generic?"

I think that's the goal. Like 'we know it's for Gentoo, but sounds like
generic'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:37 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
>
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> > > >
> >
> > > You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
> > > point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
> > > possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
> > > gentoo-networking.
>
> I thought about gentoo-networking, but that sucks in a way too because
> it implies that everyone on gentoo should be using it.
>
>  That's not quite right because we have at least five network stacks I
>  can think of off the top of my head, and OpenRc upstream supports
>  another.
>
> - OpenRc upstream supports newnet, which I have played with, and I
>   believe people on Gentoo are using successfully.
>   - what we have been calling the oldnet stack, which most gentoo users
>         have been using.
>         - dhcpcd in standalone mode.
>         - wicd
>         - NetworkManager
>         - badvpn

I do not understand... the 'old net' which is actually gentoo
networking for years, are fully functional script to manage and create
a lot of configurations, and one of the advantages we have at Gentoo
over other distributions.

The only reason why this is called old net is because Roy switched to
*BSD. What you call new net requires vast knowledge in network tools
usage and interaction, which makes life very difficult.

Some examples I managed to document:

http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/Firewall_Using_Firehol
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/OpenVPN_Server
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/OpenVPN_Non_Root
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/Vpnc_Non_Root
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/VM_Tap_Networking
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/PPP_Client
http://alonbl.tropicalwikis.com/wiki/Gentoo/PPPoE_Client

> As I have said before, none of this is an attempt to kill or deprecate
> anything. It is just re-arranging things by moving the old gentoo
> network stack into its own package. There are no plans to stop you from
> using it if you want to use it. There is definitely nothing being said
> here about the state of OpenRc in general.

From behind the words it indeed looks like there is a change coming.

Alon

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Orlitzky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/04/2013 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
> I thought about gentoo-networking, but that sucks in a way too
> because it implies that everyone on gentoo should be using it.
> 
> ...
> 
>> How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more
>> flexible if the pkg is picked up by other distros (something
>> bantied about during previous discussions).
> 
> Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo?
> General? Generic?"
> 

Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests itself.


> As I have said before, none of this is an attempt to kill or
> deprecate anything. It is just re-arranging things by moving the
> old gentoo network stack into its own package. There are no plans
> to stop you from using it if you want to use it. There is
> definitely nothing being said here about the state of OpenRc in
> general.

I admit when I first saw the name a few weeks ago I thought "oh shit
they're going to make me redo all of my network configs." Google
cleared it up, but still.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=M2rV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Duncan]

Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as excerpted:

> Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests
> itself.

I like it, if it's not taken elsewhere and will thus cause problems.



-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 10:15:35PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as excerpted:
> 
> > Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests
> > itself.
> 
> I like it, if it's not taken elsewhere and will thus cause problems.

Maybe, but then when it is ported to other init systems (someone was
even talking about adding functionality so it would work under systemd)
a name that ties it to OpenRc doesn't make sense.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Orlitzky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/04/2013 06:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 10:15:35PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as
>> excerpted:
>> 
>>> Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also
>>> suggests itself.
>> 
>> I like it, if it's not taken elsewhere and will thus cause
>> problems.
> 
> Maybe, but then when it is ported to other init systems (someone
> was even talking about adding functionality so it would work under
> systemd) a name that ties it to OpenRc doesn't make sense.
> 

It's not tied to openrc, any more than e.g. openvpn is tied to badvpn.
That's what they are, network rc scripts.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=vQmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michał Górny]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dnia 2013-08-04, o godz. 18:01:40
Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> napisał(a):

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08/04/2013 04:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > 
> > I thought about gentoo-networking, but that sucks in a way too
> > because it implies that everyone on gentoo should be using it.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more
> >> flexible if the pkg is picked up by other distros (something
> >> bantied about during previous discussions).
> > 
> > Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo?
> > General? Generic?"
> > 
> 
> Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests itself.

'net run control'?

- -- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=tnpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Orlitzky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/04/2013 06:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
>> Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests
>> itself.
> 
> 'net run control'?
> 

Sounds about right. We can say it's "net run configuration" if that's
better politically.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=/j3g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Maintainer decides (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 634 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 4. August 2013, 22:37:50 schrieb William Hubbs:
(...)

Dear William, 

I think we have come to the point where we all realize that 
* any other name is better than oldnet
* there are several possible new names
* and (as frequently) decision by discussion does not really work.
(This is now about the umpteenth discussion of the same annoyingly trivial 
topic.)

So how about *you* as the primary maintainer just pick a name which you think 
is best and we then go with it?

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde)
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 15:37 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> > > >
> > 
> > How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
> > the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
> > previous discussions).  
> 
> Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo? General?
> Generic?"


OK. that was the point like mgorny said.  To keep Gentoo out of the name
so it is more likely to be picked up by other distros due to it's ease
of use and flexibility.

Since it is so flexible and handle so many configurations...

How about Multi-net?  ;) (just one more for the fray...)

And yes, as dilfridge said, William, Robin, PLEASE end the bikeshed and
pick a decent name.  Almost anything is better than having "old" in it.


> 
> > > If we lose that flexibility and configurability then just give up on
> > > OpenRC right now cause its dead because all interesting features are
> > > gone and it'll just become an inferior init system that needs to be
> > > replaced.
> > > 
> > 
> > ++
> 
> As I have said before, none of this is an attempt to kill or deprecate
> anything. It is just re-arranging things by moving the old gentoo
> network stack into its own package. There are no plans to stop you from
> using it if you want to use it. There is definitely nothing being said
> here about the state of OpenRc in general.
> 
> William


hmm, re-reading that, I was off the way I ++'d it.  I know there are no
plans to drop support for it.  What I was plus-ing was more the fact
that with the oldnet naming, it is more and more likely for users to
migrate away from it.  After all, it's the old way as it's name
suggests.  With that happening, there will be less and less need for
openrc.  And openrc dieing a slow death.

P.S. no need to expand further on this.  It was just a clarification

Long Live OpenRC!!! :D
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 620 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1354 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 06:54:33PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 15:37 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Doug and Brian, I'm going to reply in a little more detail.
> > 
> > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:38:04PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 21:03 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > How about gen-net?  It's nice, short and the name is more flexible if
> > > the pkg is picked up by other distros (something bantied about during
> > > previous discussions).  
> > 
> > Hmm, that is a little too cryptic maybe... Is gen "Gentoo? General?
> > Generic?"
> 
> 
> OK. that was the point like mgorny said.  To keep Gentoo out of the name
> so it is more likely to be picked up by other distros due to it's ease
> of use and flexibility.
> 
> Since it is so flexible and handle so many configurations...
> 
> How about Multi-net?  ;) (just one more for the fray...)

:p

I'm actually thinking netrc if Robin is ok with it.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Duncan]

Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:30:33 -0400 as excerpted:

> On 08/04/2013 06:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 10:15:35PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>>> Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:01:40 -0400 as
>>> excerpted:
>>> 
>>>> Since it was pulled out of openrc, the name "netrc" also suggests
>>>> itself.
>>> 
>>> I like it, if it's not taken elsewhere and will thus cause problems.
>> 
>> Maybe, but then when it is ported to other init systems (someone was
>> even talking about adding functionality so it would work under systemd)
>> a name that ties it to OpenRc doesn't make sense.
>> 
> It's not tied to openrc, any more than e.g. openvpn is tied to badvpn.
> That's what they are, network rc scripts.

Exactly.  That's why I like it.  netrc is generic enough to be used 
elsewhere, yet descriptive enough of what it actually does, that from my 
perspective anyway, it's perfect. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Christopher Head]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> Exactly.  That's why I like it.  netrc is generic enough to be used 
> elsewhere, yet descriptive enough of what it actually does, that from
> my perspective anyway, it's perfect. =:^)

Probably not a big deal, but there is a “~/.netrc” file which holds
usernames and password for various services (some FTP clients use it,
maybe others).

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlH/OSYACgkQnfE3lq0v9IzItAEAh2t+7HZKTthl0im5aMtIp3AQ
nDfQkCOetZMyXEqvRGAA/05+NalxmSIn5FkkNK5+MeVrMydToxFfctROFy8FeS4U
=cPcz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Kent Fredric]

>
> Probably not a big deal, but there is a “~/.netrc” file which holds
> usernames and password for various services (some FTP clients use it,
> maybe others).
>
> Chris

https://github.com/kr/netrc
https://metacpan.org/module/Net::Netrc

^ too much evidence of prior work

And worse,  Net::Netrc is part of the standard perl distribution, and
has been so since 5.7.3 aka 11 years ago.



-- 
Kent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Kent Fredric]

On 5 August 2013 17:33, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:
> Probably not a big deal, but there is a “~/.netrc” file which holds
> usernames and password for various services (some FTP clients use it,
> maybe others).


If you want a suggestion that imbues all the things we want to imbue,
and isn't a recognised name already, I suggest "opennetrc".

Sure, its a bit of a mouthful, but a quick search only reveals people
trying to "open the netrc file", which is not really a namespace
collision.

And although it conveys the heritage of openrc, it doesn't bind itself
to being dependent on openrc.

-- 
Kent

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[vivo75]

[snip]
> :p I'm actually thinking netrc if Robin is ok with it. William 

replaying to a random message in the tree
Not going to suggest a name but if has to be something for general
consumption, it should avoid the "gentoo" inside the name
just my 0.2¢

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Robin H. Johnson]

I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
naming ideas.

I'm most certainly not planning to get rid of the package whatsoever,
many of my systems have complex configurations that are made MUCH easier
with oldnet than any other network configuration system I have found.

Goals of gentoo-oldnet:
- Make oldnet functionality available to users of other init systems
  [1][2]
  - If a package upstream is forcing you towards systemd, you shouldn't
	have to lose other very useful packages.
- Seperate out development cycle from core OpenRC
  - oldnet accounts for more than 30% of OpenRC bugs, and a large
	fraction of the codebase.

History of the oldnet name:
- It's only called oldnet because when Roy introduced 'newnet', what we
  consider to be 'oldnet' didn't actually have a separate name.

Various proposed names (in no specific order):
- openrc-oldnet (implies OpenRC, and has 'old').
- openrc-gentoo-net (implies OpenRC)
- gentoo-networking (does this mean newnet is here too?)
- gen-net  (ditto)
- netrc (conflicts)
- opennetrc (implies OpenRC)
- 'net run control' (hard to search)
- 'net run configuration' (hard to search)
- multi-net (conflicts)
- netctl (conflicts)
- netcfg (conflicts)
- netconf (conflicts)
- enet (conflicts)
- posixsh-netconf (conflicts netconf)
- nettool (conflicts)
- netcfgtool (conflicts)
- posixnet (conflicts)
- shnettool

Naming goals:
- Should describe what it does
- Does NOT have a name conflict as verified by Google.
- Does NOT imply OpenRC.
- Implying Gentoo is fine, as it's where the package comes from.
- Should drop 'old'

I think we should focus on the first goal the most: 
"oldnet is a network configuring tool in pure POSIX shell"
So we probably want the substring 'net' somewhere in there. Beyond that,
all suggestions are welcome.

[1] There was a failed GSOC project that I mentioned several years ago,
that was to support ALL openrc style init.d scripts on Upstart, so
oldnet would have worked implicitly. Unfortunately the student didn't
actually do ANY work.

[2] The configuration itself ends up broken into two parts:
- directives that control the startup dependency tree.
- directives that control the actual configuration.
The former will need to be interoperable or exported to other init
systems in some way (hopefully dynamically), the latter can stay the
same.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Patrick McLean]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:09:54 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> Naming goals:
> - Should describe what it does
> - Does NOT have a name conflict as verified by Google.
> - Does NOT imply OpenRC.
> - Implying Gentoo is fine, as it's where the package comes from.
> - Should drop 'old'
> 
> I think we should focus on the first goal the most: 
> "oldnet is a network configuring tool in pure POSIX shell"
> So we probably want the substring 'net' somewhere in there. Beyond
> that, all suggestions are welcome.
> 

Here are a couple of suggestions:
net-init (or netinit) - without the dash the only conflict appears to
                        be a matlab script of some sort

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Manuel Rüger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2013 12:09 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a
> single person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas
> for the naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a
> wider net for naming ideas.
> 
> I'm most certainly not planning to get rid of the package
> whatsoever, many of my systems have complex configurations that are
> made MUCH easier with oldnet than any other network configuration
> system I have found.
> 
> Goals of gentoo-oldnet: - Make oldnet functionality available to
> users of other init systems [1][2] - If a package upstream is
> forcing you towards systemd, you shouldn't have to lose other very
> useful packages. - Seperate out development cycle from core OpenRC 
> - oldnet accounts for more than 30% of OpenRC bugs, and a large 
> fraction of the codebase.
> 
> History of the oldnet name: - It's only called oldnet because when
> Roy introduced 'newnet', what we consider to be 'oldnet' didn't
> actually have a separate name.
> 
> Various proposed names (in no specific order): - openrc-oldnet
> (implies OpenRC, and has 'old'). - openrc-gentoo-net (implies
> OpenRC) - gentoo-networking (does this mean newnet is here too?) -
> gen-net  (ditto) - netrc (conflicts) - opennetrc (implies OpenRC) -
> 'net run control' (hard to search) - 'net run configuration' (hard
> to search) - multi-net (conflicts) - netctl (conflicts) - netcfg
> (conflicts) - netconf (conflicts) - enet (conflicts) -
> posixsh-netconf (conflicts netconf) - nettool (conflicts) -
> netcfgtool (conflicts) - posixnet (conflicts) - shnettool
> 
> Naming goals: - Should describe what it does - Does NOT have a name
> conflict as verified by Google. - Does NOT imply OpenRC. - Implying
> Gentoo is fine, as it's where the package comes from. - Should drop
> 'old'
> 
> I think we should focus on the first goal the most: "oldnet is a
> network configuring tool in pure POSIX shell" So we probably want
> the substring 'net' somewhere in there. Beyond that, all
> suggestions are welcome.
> 
> [1] There was a failed GSOC project that I mentioned several years
> ago, that was to support ALL openrc style init.d scripts on
> Upstart, so oldnet would have worked implicitly. Unfortunately the
> student didn't actually do ANY work.
> 
> [2] The configuration itself ends up broken into two parts: -
> directives that control the startup dependency tree. - directives
> that control the actual configuration. The former will need to be
> interoperable or exported to other init systems in some way
> (hopefully dynamically), the latter can stay the same.
> 


Adding some proposals:
- - altnetrc (as it is an alternative)
- - galtnet (gentoo + alternative + network)
- - altgnet (same, permuted)
- - anetcfg (alternative + network + configuration)
- - netposh (network + posix + shell)
- - psnetconf (posix shell network configuration)
- - maybe this one is inspirational, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannet

Kind regards,

Manuel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=4zrW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote

> Naming goals:
> - Should describe what it does
> - Does NOT have a name conflict as verified by Google.
> - Does NOT imply OpenRC.
> - Implying Gentoo is fine, as it's where the package comes from.
> - Should drop 'old'

  Some suggestions, keying in on the fact that it's shellscript-based

- netshell or netshellrc
- shellnet or shellnetrc
- bashnet or bashnetrc
- ashnet or ashnetrc

  Note that the "rc" suffix does not imply OpenRC, e.g...
[i660][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/*rc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1484 Jun 14 08:17 /etc/drirc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1304 Jul 27 20:30 /etc/eixrc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1855 Feb 14  2010 /etc/inputrc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  125 May 13 09:27 /etc/mail.rc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8949 Jul  4 12:53 /etc/nanorc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   77 Jun 14 04:11 /etc/procmailrc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4479 Jun 14 02:54 /etc/wgetrc

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 08/05/2013 06:09 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - netrc (conflicts)

Would naming it net-rc alleviate the perceived conflict?

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 08/05/2013 09:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 06:09 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> - netrc (conflicts)
> 
> Would naming it net-rc alleviate the perceived conflict?
> 

Or, duh, networkrc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michael Weber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/06/2013 12:09 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Various proposed names (in no specific order):
names, *sigh*

It's rather a interface setup utility than a networking thing.
Networkin happens - most cases - when you have paths and entities and
such - so:

genif - for GENtoo InterFace (relativley free on google)
geco - GEntoo COnnect (taken by ammunition and multi-national)

most penguin/cow related names are taken and dictionary words are taken.

enp3s0 - just 4,380 hits
gif - *trololo*
- -- 
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlIAlJ0ACgkQknrdDGLu8JB7RAD7BykNyuToczgom047oMvE2asl
AzasM2xBNDjnIrM/9r0A/1C8KX79YaqpihgiyCJYOEcyEpRrJLscn639oCN55jdo
=Eqvz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Alan McKinnon]

On 06/08/2013 00:09, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> naming ideas.
> 
> I'm most certainly not planning to get rid of the package whatsoever,
> many of my systems have complex configurations that are made MUCH easier
> with oldnet than any other network configuration system I have found.
> 
> Goals of gentoo-oldnet:
> - Make oldnet functionality available to users of other init systems
>   [1][2]
>   - If a package upstream is forcing you towards systemd, you shouldn't
> 	have to lose other very useful packages.
> - Seperate out development cycle from core OpenRC
>   - oldnet accounts for more than 30% of OpenRC bugs, and a large
> 	fraction of the codebase.
> 
> History of the oldnet name:
> - It's only called oldnet because when Roy introduced 'newnet', what we
>   consider to be 'oldnet' didn't actually have a separate name.
> 
> Various proposed names (in no specific order):
> - openrc-oldnet (implies OpenRC, and has 'old').
> - openrc-gentoo-net (implies OpenRC)
> - gentoo-networking (does this mean newnet is here too?)
> - gen-net  (ditto)
> - netrc (conflicts)
> - opennetrc (implies OpenRC)
> - 'net run control' (hard to search)
> - 'net run configuration' (hard to search)
> - multi-net (conflicts)
> - netctl (conflicts)
> - netcfg (conflicts)
> - netconf (conflicts)
> - enet (conflicts)
> - posixsh-netconf (conflicts netconf)
> - nettool (conflicts)
> - netcfgtool (conflicts)
> - posixnet (conflicts)
> - shnettool
> 
> Naming goals:
> - Should describe what it does
> - Does NOT have a name conflict as verified by Google.
> - Does NOT imply OpenRC.
> - Implying Gentoo is fine, as it's where the package comes from.
> - Should drop 'old'
> 
> I think we should focus on the first goal the most: 
> "oldnet is a network configuring tool in pure POSIX shell"
> So we probably want the substring 'net' somewhere in there. Beyond that,
> all suggestions are welcome.
> 
> [1] There was a failed GSOC project that I mentioned several years ago,
> that was to support ALL openrc style init.d scripts on Upstart, so
> oldnet would have worked implicitly. Unfortunately the student didn't
> actually do ANY work.
> 
> [2] The configuration itself ends up broken into two parts:
> - directives that control the startup dependency tree.
> - directives that control the actual configuration.
> The former will need to be interoperable or exported to other init
> systems in some way (hopefully dynamically), the latter can stay the
> same.
> 


The software was originally called "net", right? Perhaps not officially,
but certainly colloquially.

Why not just keep the name "net" and leave other newer systems to come
up with their own names?

I do agree that modifiers "old" and "new" are bad ideas - they come
about because of the environment and no the software itself.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/08/13 09:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 06:09 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> - netrc (conflicts)
> 
> Would naming it net-rc alleviate the perceived conflict?
> 

Or alternatively, rc-net ?

(google seems to reference 'rc' as 'remote control' as in race cars,
airplanes, etc; but given /etc/rc.* and /etc/init* have been around
forever and have always been called the "rc" system, i think we should
be safe using it)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlIBDGkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDXWQD/Y4LVerIupWiP3Z9smg/FEUIA
1mNGhvLXuWuel18PEdYA/iGoixmYUiO5h2AlDBf2gIepsa+3cMfHW1zS6MhaDmxT
=n7pZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> naming ideas.

Robin, I would like the decision to be made soon. I need to release
OpenRc-0.12 in the next day or so, and if I do not have the answer I
will have to do the split in OpenRc-0.13.

I thought of a name based on your last suggestion and a comment on the
list. Instead of networkrc, maybe netifrc (network interface rc).

So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.

If we change away from gentoo-oldnet, we will need to open an
infrastructure bug to change the name of the overlay, the bugzilla
account and the component in bugzilla before we can take bugs for the
new package.

Thoughts anyone?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Marc Schiffbauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1470 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 11:26:16 schrieb William Hubbs:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> > naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> > naming ideas.
> 
> Robin, I would like the decision to be made soon. I need to release
> OpenRc-0.12 in the next day or so, and if I do not have the answer I
> will have to do the split in OpenRc-0.13.
> 
> I thought of a name based on your last suggestion and a comment on the
> list. Instead of networkrc, maybe netifrc (network interface rc).
> 
> So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.
> 
> If we change away from gentoo-oldnet, we will need to open an
> infrastructure bug to change the name of the overlay, the bugzilla
> account and the component in bugzilla before we can take bugs for the
> new package.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?

My 2¢:

* Keep a simple but straight forward and technical name
* Do not use *rc as this implies an "oldschool" configuration filename

Some more suggestions:

* openrc-net (if it is coupled to openrc)
* rcnet
* gentoo-networking
* gentoo-netconf
* netconf

Or maybe

* larry-net ;-)

-Marc
-- 
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317  3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Duncan]

Ian Stakenvicius posted on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:47:05 -0400 as excerpted:

> Or alternatively, rc-net ?
> 
> (google seems to reference 'rc' as 'remote control' as in race cars,
> airplanes, etc; but given /etc/rc.* and /etc/init* have been around
> forever and have always been called the "rc" system, i think we should
> be safe using it)

Hmm... sounds like something the NSA could love if there's ever a 
remotely exploitable vuln.  Remote-control-net indeed! =:^(

Never-the less, it's still reasonable even if I like the net-rc idea 
better.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1092 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> > naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> > naming ideas.
> 
> Robin, I would like the decision to be made soon. I need to release
> OpenRc-0.12 in the next day or so, and if I do not have the answer I
> will have to do the split in OpenRc-0.13.
> 
> I thought of a name based on your last suggestion and a comment on the
> list. Instead of networkrc, maybe netifrc (network interface rc).
> 
> So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.

All,

Robin hasn't responded, so my choice for this is netifrc (network
interface rc). Someone made a comment about "rc" implying "old school",
RC means "run control". I'm not sure an implication of "old school" is a
big concern.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:00:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> > if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.
> Robin hasn't responded, so my choice for this is netifrc (network
> interface rc). Someone made a comment about "rc" implying "old school",
> RC means "run control". I'm not sure an implication of "old school" is a
> big concern.
Long live netifrc!

(networkrc is already used)

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-08-07, o godz. 12:00:57
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> > > naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> > > naming ideas.
> > 
> > Robin, I would like the decision to be made soon. I need to release
> > OpenRc-0.12 in the next day or so, and if I do not have the answer I
> > will have to do the split in OpenRc-0.13.
> > 
> > I thought of a name based on your last suggestion and a comment on the
> > list. Instead of networkrc, maybe netifrc (network interface rc).
> > 
> > So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> > if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.
> 
> Robin hasn't responded, so my choice for this is netifrc (network
> interface rc). Someone made a comment about "rc" implying "old school",
> RC means "run control". I'm not sure an implication of "old school" is a
> big concern.

Well, it sounds totally like motif to me but that doesn't really
matter :D. Though I'd cut it down to 'netif' unless that's taken.
Without the 'rc' is more nicely pronounced.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:01:14AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Well, it sounds totally like motif to me but that doesn't really
> matter :D. Though I'd cut it down to 'netif' unless that's taken.
> Without the 'rc' is more nicely pronounced.
"netif" is taken unfortunately, it's hard to differentiate in Google
between:
NETIF - Nepal Environment and Tourism Initiative Foundation
netif.h in lwip
net/if.h in the core POSIX/XNS specs.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Marc Schiffbauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2013, 12:00:57 schrieb William Hubbs:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:09:54PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > I'm replying the start of this thread, rather than picking a single
> > > person to respond to. I DO want more brainstorming on ideas for the
> > > naming of the package, and I think people need to cast a wider net for
> > > naming ideas.
> > 
> > Robin, I would like the decision to be made soon. I need to release
> > OpenRc-0.12 in the next day or so, and if I do not have the answer I
> > will have to do the split in OpenRc-0.13.
> > 
> > I thought of a name based on your last suggestion and a comment on the
> > list. Instead of networkrc, maybe netifrc (network interface rc).
> > 
> > So, my choices, in no particular order, would be, netifrc, networkrc or,
> > if neither of those fly, keep gentoo-oldnet.
> 
> All,
> 
> Robin hasn't responded, so my choice for this is netifrc (network
> interface rc). Someone made a comment about "rc" implying "old school",
> RC means "run control". I'm not sure an implication of "old school" is a
> big concern.

Ich think it was me who was telling that. What I meant was that "old school" 
configuration file names are often called somethingrc which may imply that 
netifrc might be a configiration file for a tool called netif.

-Marc
-- 
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317  3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]