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 97701138247 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C29EEE0BAC; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:47:14 +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 D4297E09D7 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.177.8.171] (85-76-75-113-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.75.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFA8C33EDCC for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <529F5C6C.7060704@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:46:36 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 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> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3c32e5b3-523e-4259-814b-164030f6be5f X-Archives-Hash: cb56156af6225b38c77ea43cf1087402 On 03/12/13 23:11, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: >> On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >>>> On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...] >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default >>> networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? IMO that should >>> remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion. >> I personally like netifrc default but there is no good way to use it as >> default we will need to keep use flag arbitrary long or add netifrc to >> @system but it will return us back to the problems of users who doesn't >> want to have netifrc on their systems. And with the rise of systems and NM >> the number of such users will grow. Anyway I'd like to see base system herd >> vote. > I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which > has the following rdepend settings: > > RDEPEND=" || ( > net-misc/netifrc > >=sys-apps/openrc-0.12[newnet] > net-misc/badvpn > net-misc/dhcpcd > net-misc/netctl > net-misc/NetworkManager > net-misc/wicd )" > > Does anyone see an issue with setting it up this way? > seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in random package(s) a la binary-distribution style just update the handbook to include the 'emerge netifrc' step and mention it's just one possibility