From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SZ2L8-0003gW-Tu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:58:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BAEEE07DF; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A42EE078D for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:57:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91A1E1B4054 for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:57:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FC3A076.7050407@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:57:42 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120511 Thunderbird/10.0.4 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: OpenRC Networking Scripts References: <20120526194025.GA16393@linux1> <4FC23EE3.4060208@gentoo.org> <20120527145656.GA5206@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20120527145656.GA5206@linux1> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 39422366-f7a7-43d5-817a-17c4cc554f38 X-Archives-Hash: bd803dd537764a3943797e50bdd42336 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27/05/12 10:56 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:49:07AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 26/05/12 03:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I realize this has been discussed and there are definite >>> opinions about which method works well. So, I want to take a >>> different approach. >>> >>> Is there any interest in documenting and supporting newnet >>> along side oldnet as opposed to killing newnet? >>> >>> Newnet would consist of the "network" init script to set up >>> your loopback interface along with something like dhcpcd, >>> networkmanager, or wicd (and wpa_supplicant for wireless >>> interfaces) running in standalone mode to manage your other >>> interfaces. >>> >>> My understanding of the way newnet works is that the big >>> advantage would come for workstations that have a simple >>> network setup and where users would want hotplugged interfaces >>> to just work. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> William >>> >> >> >> Just want to point out that my hotplugged interfaces work great >> with oldnet. > > Actually they don't, because we don't make or remove the net.* > symlinks in /etc/init.d for the hotplugged interfaces when the > interfaces are added or removed. > > William > Although yes this is true, when I did my install I just made symlinks for net.eth{0,1,2,3} and net.wlan{0,1}. Once they are there, usage is straight-forward and the iface scripts that I don't hotplug are never started so there isn't any issue with them being there (on my systems I don't specify all devices need to be up for 'net' to be up). Although, as rumour has it udev is dropping the persistent-*.rules soon so it might become difficult for me to configure my various net.*'s in a consistent way. But that's a side issue that'll affect more than just hotplugging I expect. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/DoHYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB62AEAoxWcOPJUBeWh/mJbcQ3ueITa Fq0jCbLzVnMLVPX2OXQBAI/+/0ameFw24/0fGeCpSMTWCBe0iQajIAV1y2HETRsM =aZDR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----