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 CF91C138247 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EB9FE09DD; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:03:48 +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 9FEF2E081D for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.177.8.171] (85-76-76-234-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.76.234]) (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 5BC1A33F5F9 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52A0B1CF.3020301@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:03:11 +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> <529F5C6C.7060704@gentoo.org> <20131204212537.GA19609@linux1> <20131204223152.GA19756@linux1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 329e4ae7-3bd0-4dd8-914c-0ca64c02052d X-Archives-Hash: f720ad3d715ccd3aebba74ae3a262da9 On 05/12/13 00:36, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, 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? >> Personally, I don't know of one. Does anyone else? >> > Thinking on this further, the same logic could be applied to > sys-apps/openrc, and probably a few other packages that are not > build/toolchain critical. I suppose we need to draw a sanity line > somewhere. ^_^ > indeed. it just looks clear the line has moved a bit with all these modern networking setup tools coming around, so let's redefine where the line is drawn accordingly.