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 3ECD91381F3 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C8C30E0B7F; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD852E0B03 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id oi10so2913880obb.24 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:51:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=r3pek.org; s=r3pek; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=iOf8WynJ9iTMc4n+cIqTTPr+X/+07xNYuxou717KEB0=; b=HGBNlpf6RWCKZl7zBTiShzcXoEkqZ/55ueJ4d3wIOanQVREF5kfXElWrDWNFjsNKaU l+iA6wGCVyP3eIeeV2NbWZ1k01D/n+yQNPVAIsrxkd+XJXYBgMosQVXChpWwdUfac9zf WSGPAyHeSbmb46b8Elw1MSTvOe/vKEYbFaZTI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=iOf8WynJ9iTMc4n+cIqTTPr+X/+07xNYuxou717KEB0=; b=AwJ9BKxrS5yq1Hcp5hk3sz9BZJKV85qPqaWpk6F2wnuKceJLK5VYZVcqXZPQOt4RFN Ue/ajCDpX1P4D6B1IvqWHVmil0OKFmmPCRZYdpD0zMznrnI8TYij33A6FM0gP9hCHwBo pp9ZvyiKJFKpfI3KlGRzOITRN86fBCzj6CgDXPEICBBO+11fZSYxOz1iLeXRmNBPHFcn Lx4oBd8Jl9p9rGhyKMQ6ddq0EC6ITD9ZZ7bXjsHYmc7JwsYteO+f5YW1NR7MlWzVmoyA LMMHTUQenewvUx5nwpv8pv7V/lYEYr0R50RjKVDVIsr6j2NW4TFk9ZhansqvPsKkmjQM LtUg== X-Received: by 10.60.56.36 with SMTP id x4mr21558657oep.25.1366930281662; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:51:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.76.113.135 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:51:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [85.240.25.117] In-Reply-To: References: <20130424161606.GA1607@linux1> <51795ECC.4030603@mva.name> From: Carlos Silva Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:51:01 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c249f6df25b004db3741ca X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgB8f46epHS1snxZ+y7+C8ruOwMzmkZ9a+ijEsyAKhaLpd949IUbKPBvZgBeqNOSPFK6Al X-Archives-Salt: 0f2a7581-ce5c-4f1f-a703-27235c82e20b X-Archives-Hash: 6cf93717956e545dc6b39bd03a48d4b7 --001a11c249f6df25b004db3741ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > > Maybe I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of ways to have gentoo *running* in a box without it having network connection. The thing is that makes like 0.01% of the total installs. It's not a default install, it isn't on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one, but I really don't consider that an installation), and most importantly, AFAIK, it's not something any John Doe would do. Offline installations and "runtimes" are for geeks that use linux for a long time and know how the system work and have the knowledge to build a stage4 or chroot and move it to another box. It's not something technically difficult for us "geeks", but would take ages for some non-geek to do it. Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do something to his box other that "pacman " (yeah, he's on arch) and he's using linux for some time now. The bottom line here is, does @system have to have virtual/network-provider? - Yes -> Make it RDEPEND; - No -> don't care and just set some use flags. The question above is more a political one than technical. Everyone here knows that a system doesn't have to have networking support for it to boot, we can't even guarantee that networking support is in the kernel (at least I don't see it using kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default meaning that 99% or more of the people will use or *need* it? <--- political Sorry if I was too long on this :) --001a11c249f6df25b004db3741ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan= @cox.net> wrote:
<snip>

=
Maybe I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of = ways to have gentoo *running* in a box without it having network connection= . The thing is that makes like 0.01% of the total installs. It's not a = default install, it isn't on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the c= hroot one, but I really don't consider that an installation), and most = importantly, AFAIK, it's not something any John Doe would do. Offline i= nstallations and "runtimes" are for geeks that use linux for a lo= ng time and know how the system work and have the knowledge to build a stag= e4 or chroot and move it to another box. It's not something technically= difficult for us "geeks", but would take ages for some non-geek = to do it.
Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do som= ething to his box other that "pacman <something>" (yeah, he= 's on arch) and he's using linux for some time now.

The bottom line here is, does @system have to have vir= tual/network-provider?
- Yes -> Make it RDEPEND;
- No -> don't care and just set some use flags.

The question above is more a pol= itical one than technical. Everyone here knows that a system doesn't ha= ve to have networking support for it to boot, we can't even guarantee t= hat networking support is in the kernel (at least I don't see it using = kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default meaning that 99% or more of the = people will use or *need* it? <--- political

Sorry if I was too long on this :)
--001a11c249f6df25b004db3741ca--