From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63827-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B9813827E for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 905DAE0B85; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0472E0B61 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:41:32 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,872,1378854000"; d="scan'208";a="53338346" Received: from unknown (HELO rathaus.eclipse.co.uk) ([109.176.226.118]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2013 17:41:32 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:51:00 +0000 From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up Message-ID: <20131211175100.GA23382@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <52A2B788.3040409@gentoo.org> <20131208222552.GA22567@linux1> <52A5D89A.4080506@gentoo.org> <CAGfcS_ksGkU9vUSaZY=vcdposZOiZRMuVwjYBp5b=iqUGFgnFw@mail.gmail.com> <52A62062.9030109@gentoo.org> <CAGfcS_=g3j5KLDWBLGosNOdee2OXjABqx35=RjMFSPmS4BLskQ@mail.gmail.com> <1386671491.1145.24.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <CAGfcS_kdS+5=av2bYcGCtJ0P-fUg+QF8LU0AwdzD1++3UfzyBQ@mail.gmail.com> <1386701201.1145.29.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1386701201.1145.29.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> X-Archives-Salt: 8c7aa9fd-373b-4917-bb68-7bf23cb436ca X-Archives-Hash: 33cc77fc9a7b442b48ca7c6264822d07 On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Tue, 2013-12-10, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here. > > > > Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are > > issues with ARM, hence my previous suggestion that it might make sense > > to vary this by profile. > > > > Definitely - but then we have to do everything in the profiles, and at > least for ARM, there are currently 6 profiles, and we're considering > introducing a 7th (neon), and we will need to add aarch64, which will be > at least 2 more. I suppose we could do it in the base arm profile... I don't think it would make sense to remove networking from any profile. Far better to develop a 14 profile using dhcpcd and make that work, without affecting current users. The virtual could be used to add any higher layer desired, but would not be required. > > If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think > > there would be more of a case for removing it. > > > > After all, we stick openrc and portage (the PM) in the stage3 and you > > don't exactly need those in order to run Gentoo... Yup. Which is steev's "functional" point, so you seem to be in agreement. > While you don't need those specifically to run Gentoo, the point of the > stage3 is to have a workable base to start with. So people are very > much free to yank out openrc and put in, say, systemd, and rip out > portage and add in paludis, if they so choose, and make those available. > And from the traffic I've seen on the systemd list, it looks like they > are adding some sort of networking to systemd itself as well, so we > probably will need a virtual at some point. My specific point of the > email though, was you saying that a stage3 in general aren't functional > - but they are - they are the very base of a functional system, and you > simply add things on top, or replace things with your preferred methods. > A stage1 or a stage2 isn't particularly functional. Agreed. There's no real point in a stage3 that doesn't support some sort of networking. It's fine to change over, but again that should be done with a new profile, not by randomly removing netifrc USE default. The latter may not be "correct" on a purist level, but it's a darn sight better than breaking installs, and is only a transitional measure. The transition is much easier to handle as a profile change, for an end-user, and the experimental profile facilitates modification of base stages and working on them, without breaking the current setup. After all, if someone wants to setup a Gentoo install *without* networking they are very much doing a specialist thing, and can deal with it themselves. So I don't think we should give too much time to that use-case, in terms of implementation effort; staying out of the way when the user tells us to is all that's required, and that's easy: do nothing, or in this case, don't force any dependencies on higher-level network managers, unless required for correct functioning. Regards, steveL -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)