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 48EB4138247 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C338AE0A95; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB790E0A8B for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.14] (pool-72-95-221-222.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [72.95.221.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zerochaos) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6361733E7AF for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:19:47 -0500 From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 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] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9e41d3c7-ce68-423f-83d5-9f51c4eea21d X-Archives-Hash: a3bb448eff076244cee85f67a9172f90 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: > > *snip* > >> The other two cases need a clarification: >> 3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!? > > That's correct, you do not need one if you are using something like > networkmanager or dhcpcd in master mode. > >> 4) netifrc newnet: ??? > > Both would be installed, but you still have to configure the one you > want to use. > > 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSnPlzAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKX04P/jV742c4/2/T+LKqpNiu4Q1V tRRjBxbAo679MkjMdSsETzeT87jE5QtGGmsua9lcIP93WU28Qik8PRtXl74mpJav 83leOqnI5iis1TJml1MHoco5FIFIB5cC/QQ5xOFTgaEZhY+f9r8/hzxG+xXRyaW/ X+PRmj167rTrs9Yzp7VINjbo+EqUxtOUqzFQySK6uW89cQB1HUDgZ9SKIey3f1PY KiTQbb16o7a6XXP3CwQOZGinwo8VJvIdxx9CypSdBXoIE6A/G2ux0HSjzs+8HeWO s9OO3Pa9ptX8JxyRtd2Y18CYLoAmc7ecLupyOqpvLptVG7r38iaP93D6+89IN7Kp WYv/UBbyMOLE4voZotRUHeKb5Dtl69nir9JvfohQTavs7gXLQca3BHAXMLOfbjYf jokGdE5OqQQHwn1Bokl2+4blIYY+FDKrh+0osqe4T2Nk02wli5/6IiThVk5kttJl MXzqh2+1Oz+jtp1F2pTsP3hJUuV6sdtHiunXNKicyDSCYrZIadXtA+DB2gImmvHD HWnfomYlqZnKUs+lxwh4FM56O5NzpVnWxiA4Xx8K8Rgq5i8bCUiluxZgKTwBPyk8 c4EUllyp7u0mZCNL90XH6aeLIWXcI8vPW7K4sgsG0fhxWSGDQCIYQLRe/86MCWKh bCCtQC4u5/IlGO5NDKw5 =ripZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----