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 1BD7613827E for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 22:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D677E0A86; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 22:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E258E0A80 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 22:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id va2so2932418obc.36 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:25:55 -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=d5NjayEfrT0fZ8oD9/NG+KSfdpz6OaXedboJ/evzTow=; b=XI4wjUEaoOPO9AI0Gx7FMUD7BtYY4jvoE7XeWgEaUAfTS6SBlVEWDGz+Vh+ETHunAQ 9GKtLb+M+ZMYYLoqrfvRXFwCE2aS+TTZMgr6W/cCqbarSvmp7oFUZfPYXscjoELIShNG GHWarTuuyGw4L/utuNxxz9qinpbXZqt8OE5RfhikP6TckAU4uenFFqpMBlpovn3cwMxd GLFE4Zgru9AHLp1LURr+toj/x1UMqr3aM59xsjpALc5xdspjZnBTFSfD/a3kSHqlmyrM C4ScI2s6jrdLPBj8KlFyfn0zChYFI9eYEuSLhQCpl5DwDWjcCoTLhCfW8OTtgpfUjPJe lC5g== X-Received: by 10.60.84.138 with SMTP id z10mr3816568oey.4.1386541555784; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:25:55 -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 o13sm15701300oer.8.2013.12.08.14.25.53 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:25:54 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:25:52 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:25:52 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up Message-ID: <20131208222552.GA22567@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <52A2B788.3040409@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="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52A2B788.3040409@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: ccf7326a-5e53-4104-b1f0-2885708c5e11 X-Archives-Hash: 65e6b96e5191a3b527b11a2cbaede621 --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > 1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a > USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if they really > don't want it. We don't have to put this in @system at all. We could just have a virtual/network-manager, like we have virtual/cron, virtual/logger, virtual/mta, etc. None of these are installed by default; you have to choose one as part of your installation process. The more I read this thread, the more I agree with this approach; let the user make the choice as part of the installation process. > Just as a side note, after reading the thread up through this point, I'm > terrified of the individuals who wish to remove networking support from > stage3 entirely. If anyone wants to push that idea then that needs to > be addressed by the council. Period. Such a major change is going to > cause a holy war, and myself and others will actively revert any change > which removes net from stage3 under the guise of "critical breakage" > unless there is council direction that says we are no longer including > net support in the stage3s. I am in agreement with Rich and Peter. This isn't a matter of breaking the stages; it is a matter of us getting out of the way and letting the users pick the network stack they want. We do this for the kernel, boot loader, etc, so I don't understand why you feel we need council direction to make a similar change for the network manager. William --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlKk8fAACgkQblQW9DDEZTjFYwCeNgo84djzBLCOlExrH3nB3n3n j38Ani3NuqAqZO8aZJjvRLXN1912TaHj =POn6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--