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 7AF47138200 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4B78E0998; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:13:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D66E097E for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id q13so1292151vbe.16 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=lPP83n+JgKJuqLoNMphJJCawn58zcKGsXoX5j275h8o=; b=VkTpzIRWhZX0VaTLUz/f1vmT/nu/KF7znS0gtDRlayO3z4cFQuxFa/8eEScZb9mIdv /LCGbF2VlB3UJ9tD3mNwxRHKN2lcRTCpJtLwFw2nNhc/3EMaLEBzm01tbB6pf14imhKi +Nxotv61UXN0ruChUem2Ce3nsG14y+IjujTbpDy/VhsUEF+ZwrrHgihDZ0flUSYpKQBo zTa8CppOyjjkjy6k+OJvs3PwLKDe52sRht4Qd+/iQFoBazg2Pw3kbvK99qA7PVr4fV4c VrJcitTSbm/YFu20iL+PU8kxT9PwteDbrhAouKDUIuI2U8OI7xIK3ewj7ZqprDq1SM/6 eEkQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.220.169.132 with SMTP id z4mr11393361vcy.28.1366859603333; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.220.40.146 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.26.51.6] In-Reply-To: <201304241334.37807.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20130424161606.GA1607@linux1> <51780F2D.7060007@gentoo.org> <20130424172323.GB2323@linux1> <201304241334.37807.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:13:23 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tH5RkgK1aouLl8atXx-Wf3vie9M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC From: Alec Warner To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b671ee41d671e04db26cdf5 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnuWShsY/kTc4YWIHAJQIIyNAI66886YKTp/2GobRdUNXsKLakNJqQ/I3jqmDEFVjF0XwER X-Archives-Salt: 88500fd1-dbbd-4464-af48-7f82d961d6e4 X-Archives-Hash: ede9bc14facea4e6a5568bc083ea1f3d --047d7b671ee41d671e04db26cdf5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 24 April 2013 13:23:23 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:58:21PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > On 24/04/13 12:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > it has been suggested that gentoo's oldnet scripts be split out > > > > into their own package separate from OpenRC so that they can be > > > > developed independently. I am looking at doing this for OpenRC > > > > 0.12, which I hope to release soon. > > > > > > > > This means when you emerge or upgrade to openrc-0.12, the net.* > > > > scripts will no longer be included. I am going to call the separate > > > > package that includes these scripts gentoo-oldnet. > > > > > > > > My plan is to write a newsitem when OpenRC 0.12 is released > > > > telling users this and that they will have to emerge gentoo-oldnet > > > > to get the gentoo networking scripts or turn on the newnet (maybe > > > > I'll change this to net) use flag to get OpenRC's network scripts > > > > installed and put ewarns in the ebuild if this use flag is turned > > > > off. > > > > > > > > I feel that a newsitem and ewarns in the OpenRC ebuild cover live > > > > systems well. In a nutshell, users should pay attention to their > > > > news items and ewarns. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, some are suggesting that I should add a runtime > > > > dependency to OpenRC so that it pulls in gentoo-oldnet. Since > > > > OpenRC doesn't need gentoo-oldnet in order to run, I feel like this > > > > would be abusing dependencies. > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts? > > > > > > Current users should be able to do a -uDN and still have their > > > existing systems work as-is. Whether you do this via a static > > > dependency or one controlled by a use flag (and be sure use flag > > > defaults would have oldnet installed by default) is up to you. > > > > The issue is that OpenRC does not have any kind of dependency on > > gentoo-oldnet at all. There will be a separate loopback script in OpenRC > > so it is possible to run OpenRC on a system without the oldnet or > > newnet scripts. In fact, this is a completely valid configuration. > > > > OpenRC doesn't "link" to gentoo-oldnet in any way, so there is no > > dependency. > > > > The way I read the dev manual [1], a newsitem and postinst messages are > > the way to go for somethinglike this. > > it is reasonable to expect openrc updates to *not* break a system. that > means > people shouldn't be required to read a news/postinst message to keep from > killing things. > > So my understanding is that WIlliam does not want to break peoples shit. He doesn't want to maintain oldnet anymore. Other people do. What he wants to do is move oldnet out of openrc. I think that means that: openrc will no longer contain oldnet. openrc ebuilds will need to depend on to make networking work. A brief discussion with him in chat seems to imply that oldnet is still fine. So in Gentoo we could just set IUSE="+oldnet" or similar, and it would get pulled in. Someone may need to fix up the stages to work (I thought they relied on USE="-*" which would entail missing out on oldnet here.) > even then, a default Gentoo system should have networking support > available by > default. our manuals assume this, and people shouldn't have to install a > stage3 and then do `emerge gentoo-oldnet` just to have that happen. so > keeping a dependency in openrc (perhaps initially hard, or behind > IUSE=+oldnet) makes sense. > -mike > Yeah after discussing in chat, I don't think the intention was to 'get everyone off of oldnet' but simply to move it out of openrc and into dedicated packages with maintainers that care about it. -A --047d7b671ee41d671e04db26cdf5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@= gentoo.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 24 April 2013= 13:23:23 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:58:21PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 24/04/13 12:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote= :
> > > it has been suggested that gentoo= 9;s oldnet scripts be split out
> > > into their own package separate from OpenRC so that they can= be
> > > developed independently. I am looking at doing this for Open= RC
> > > 0.12, which I hope to release soon.
> > >
> > > This means when you emerge or upgrade to openrc-0.12, the ne= t.*
> > > scripts will no longer be included. I am going to call the s= eparate
> > > package that includes these scripts gentoo-oldnet.
> > >
> > > My plan is =C2=A0to write a newsitem when OpenRC 0.12 is rel= eased
> > > telling users this and that they will have to emerge gentoo-= oldnet
> > > to get the gentoo networking scripts or turn on the newnet (= maybe
> > > I'll change this to net) use flag to get OpenRC's ne= twork scripts
> > > installed and put ewarns in the ebuild if this use flag is t= urned
> > > off.
> > >
> > > I feel that a newsitem and ewarns in the OpenRC ebuild cover= live
> > > systems well. In a nutshell, users should pay attention to t= heir
> > > news items and ewarns.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, some are suggesting that I should add a r= untime
> > > dependency to OpenRC so that it pulls in gentoo-oldnet. Sinc= e
> > > OpenRC doesn't need gentoo-oldnet in order to run, I fee= l like this
> > > would be abusing dependencies.
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any thoughts?
> >
> > Current users should be able to do a -uDN= and still have their
> > existing systems work as-is. =C2=A0Whether you do this via a stat= ic
> > dependency or one controlled by a use flag (and be sure use flag<= br> > > defaults would have oldnet installed by default) is up to you. >
> =C2=A0The issue is that OpenRC does not have any kind of dependency on=
> =C2=A0gentoo-oldnet at all. There will be a separate loopback script i= n OpenRC
> =C2=A0so it is possible to run OpenRC on a system without the oldnet o= r
> =C2=A0newnet scripts. In fact, this is a completely valid configuratio= n.
>
> OpenRC doesn't "link" to gentoo-oldnet in any way, so th= ere is no
> dependency.
>
> The way I read the dev manual [1], a newsitem and postinst messages ar= e
> the way to go for somethinglike this.

it is reasonable to expect openrc updates to *not* break a system. = =C2=A0that means
people shouldn't be required to read a news/postinst message to keep fr= om
killing things.


So my understanding is that WIll= iam does not want to break peoples shit. He doesn't want to maintain ol= dnet anymore. Other people do. What he wants to do is move oldnet out of op= enrc. I think that means that:

openrc will no longer contain oldnet.
openrc ebuilds will need to depend on <something> to m= ake networking work. A brief discussion with him in chat seems to imply tha= t oldnet is still fine. So in Gentoo we could just set IUSE=3D"+oldnet= " or similar, and it would get pulled in.
Someone may need to fix up the stages to work (I thought they re= lied on USE=3D"-*" which would entail missing out on oldnet here.= )

=C2=A0
even then, a default Gentoo system should have networking support available= by
default. =C2=A0our manuals assume this, and people shouldn't have to in= stall a
stage3 and then do `emerge gentoo-oldnet` just to have that happen. =C2=A0s= o
keeping a dependency in openrc (perhaps initially hard, or behind
IUSE=3D+oldnet) makes sense.
-mike

Yeah after discussing in chat, I don't think the intention was to '= ;get everyone off of oldnet' but simply to move it out of openrc and in= to dedicated packages with maintainers that care about it.

-A

--047d7b671ee41d671e04db26cdf5--