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 A1995138247 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 099EEE0E77; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qe0-f47.google.com (mail-qe0-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183A4E0C27 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id t7so16657360qeb.20 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:57:00 -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=xImawCUh21LepUFSHUu3OnNtAlTWdV6KpYcK6zWnogs=; b=cD7Mj2ksZBfHb5gyxgqhHurS+PYp8J7AMgG8w90bh2ZzEI06Bt55xFUMfOzlGpqBnU /YW8NBzijiFNpr30dSkQfUx30utGOPSciNa+Y3ox1UpgBFTIHNEiN69iHcTblQ+RA/We DyVhIKrQfwjP1uLHIlO7V1rZDvare0F6+N+ypyJruaWtCq5wgdvut3aJ7PkbtzljfTJe zdsNd/fxu6accttgncHvTKjwgOFCSNedMaX7wSxuc2L4wCzhbp50zcR5pOOH7jJDMopr uleZyQKL8jl2vB8iJvUvHouG57gkBTbcJNaczzWn7sukZzHp9aPHixUzg3sBfKvzmT1C Up9g== X-Received: by 10.49.84.195 with SMTP id b3mr33162334qez.32.1386208620148; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:57:00 -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 hb2sm23915936qeb.6.2013.12.04.17.56.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:56:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:56:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:56:56 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up Message-ID: <20131205015656.GA20136@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <529F5C6C.7060704@gentoo.org> <20131204212537.GA19609@linux1> <529FBE92.4000003@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="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: af58720b-5ed8-46f2-9ec1-73eebd56fa85 X-Archives-Hash: 0690480629597569bfdad88ad61c9554 --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wr= ote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > >>>> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in > >>>> random package(s) a la binary-distribution style > >>> > >>> What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in > >>> stage 3? > >>> > >> > >> That's debatable. For a typical install, the user has to install other > >> basic stuff like a boot loader, kernel, etc. So having them also > >> select a network config framework seems logical. > >> > >> Is there a use case for a stage3 in which installing netifrc by hand > >> is impractical? > >> > > Well ... > > > > I remember filing a bug quite a while ago because we didn't have a dhcp > > client included anymore. This made installs quite annoying because > > before it was stage3, kernel, bootloader, go! > > > > And now it was go ... stop ... reboot ... install dhcp client ... > > grremblwrrxrmkrxtlmrrrg .... reboot > > > > That extra step of whining was loud enough to have openrc fixed to be > > able to use busybox udhcp, so that "out of the box" most network worked. > > > > ... and now people are trying to do the same again. > > > > I would STRONGLY recommend having a working network setup included in > > stage3, so that compared to now nothing changes. > > > > >=20 > Yeah, after some further thought, I'm inclined to agree. I think we would be safe as long as we make sure to document in the handbook that users must choose a network manager. We could recommend netifrc by default for now until we can document how to set up the others. Once all of this hits stable I want to work with releng to get them to use standalone dhcpcd on the LiveCD. What do you think? William --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlKf3WgACgkQblQW9DDEZThqPQCfZqg/tkhE4ab/KWxS9v1fmXGt NsAAmwbsVj2hroL3S5Y0eO21LB77hOTY =KCCC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--