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 3BCD8138247 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91F4FE0B20; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:11:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com (mail-yh0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEAAEE0A5E for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a41so10101381yho.16 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:11:33 -0800 (PST) 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:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=BPyi4C3b2NqjBJcwzoWqOuGoWKR8zIrcAc7e6d3maXY=; b=Pfh3bpFI9HMPI2sOfs8B3y3pqJCn/nK3nQfcsdDdeDLUwGOVSD11jHxTbnP+NpXB6b JPyARmz/r/8PviGAHuZoozqocglvTv2itgRhrK7m9Wc1l3RcS4QYK9uZhqep/kzOGQAF mGoVooP0MArrJjZTgY6eMGBCd4ykxNIqZJEDj52UehaWnYfvmK1qrrGF2W+dXb9nMlhE oqn/Ot8HAjpSKVprWkMYHrAg8Jn9pc1kNrN4ZIDnTpwkSrt1l9oq4CVIpCqVrn1tHJRu c2fKqKV5hoCcWlQCjc7CZxu9zNKgcWnFVJGKwSJLuUMivRsyON1AAugrTOhtr24Ws0b1 xTWQ== X-Received: by 10.236.5.174 with SMTP id 34mr21847926yhl.48.1386105093757; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e39sm136089350yhq.15.2013.12.03.13.11.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:11:32 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:11:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:11:30 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up Message-ID: <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@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="yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 56e84406-ce91-4c9f-929b-0af24c79d793 X-Archives-Hash: d76db9a1057ee1140a5145951c62f267 --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: > On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...] > > >> Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc > > >> use flag is temporary. > > > > > >> I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along with a > > >> newsitem that instructed you to emerge the netifrc package if you > > >> want the legacy network stack, but some users/devs felt that > > >> Ishould go further to make sure netifrc remains installed on > > >> their systems. > > > > > > As one of those devs, I feel now may be a good time to ask.... What > > > are we doing about this? In my opinion, anyone removing net > > > support from the stage3's should be killed with fire. That said, I > > > don't care if it's netifrc or whatever as long as it is properly > > > documented and actually usable. > > > > > > Thoughts on how we move forward? > > > > > > Thanks, Zero > > > > > > > Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default > > networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? IMO that should > > remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion. >=20 > I personally like netifrc default but there is no good way to use it as > default we will need to keep use flag arbitrary long or add netifrc to > @system but it will return us back to the problems of users who doesn't > want to have netifrc on their systems. And with the rise of systems and NM > the number of such users will grow. Anyway I'd like to see base system he= rd > vote. I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which has the following rdepend settings: RDEPEND=3D" || ( net-misc/netifrc >=3Dsys-apps/openrc-0.12[newnet] net-misc/badvpn net-misc/dhcpcd net-misc/netctl net-misc/NetworkManager net-misc/wicd )" Does anyone see an issue with setting it up this way? William --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlKeSQIACgkQblQW9DDEZTiPyACfQSTht4CTN8G0jQov6gwAn07k r0sAoLOPsR9+o1Vqaiw6rsRTxH7TRu6u =PgFb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM--