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 E8726138247 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F0B7E0E61; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:43:01 +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 EF0D4E0DF5 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8254433D8B7 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <529FBE92.4000003@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 07:45:22 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer 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> <529F5C6C.7060704@gentoo.org> <20131204212537.GA19609@linux1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: fd6b99cb-8148-4508-9734-aced3b365f9b X-Archives-Hash: dc0ae434cdd54cc65cd93c0bf851737f On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in >>> random package(s) a la binary-distribution style >> >> What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in >> stage 3? >> > > That's debatable. For a typical install, the user has to install other > basic stuff like a boot loader, kernel, etc. So having them also > select a network config framework seems logical. > > Is there a use case for a stage3 in which installing netifrc by hand > is impractical? > Well ... I remember filing a bug quite a while ago because we didn't have a dhcp client included anymore. This made installs quite annoying because before it was stage3, kernel, bootloader, go! And now it was go ... stop ... reboot ... install dhcp client ... grremblwrrxrmkrxtlmrrrg .... reboot That extra step of whining was loud enough to have openrc fixed to be able to use busybox udhcp, so that "out of the box" most network worked. ... and now people are trying to do the same again. I would STRONGLY recommend having a working network setup included in stage3, so that compared to now nothing changes.