From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59851-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925461381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:58:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92C11E0918;
Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:58:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E09CE08D4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 9so3925128iec.36
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=YifgsjKB9LvjSdGg/WzyqXOFezwIF3qm1+NCiFiDjyg=;
b=WQqXJHIs0Dr14MonuAGmKbTbrd2CUMrq5SBggAEhQn7Ioovb+axorExjHmuekUYvQ1
CAe4zgz52gZXQ9duysDn1TxKU4yH458NK2VqdbX3Xj+wcMbViUsRs/kPrzgVpP9DhNOo
kzoLMDfPZh0396r3qD9gwp+Qtc7rIROW5HfSmqIeI5LrPIbm/pNuH4JWo03xcfM0xMTu
i2Oj+dy7LLh2MxPb6FIYqlBwTuE4ghAk48TVf4z+1p9LBua0yjjRlQI4ktoCivA1aJHC
VhxFyFNLAOpCTHEbS63VhSkcX0ovKU81pdFJvtj0tHgUfGqfuDSLpkapW+qnYsydzwI3
HkTw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.72.3 with SMTP id z3mr31950365igu.47.1366909096808; Thu,
25 Apr 2013 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.171.19 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51795ECC.4030603@mva.name>
References: <20130424161606.GA1607@linux1>
<51795ECC.4030603@mva.name>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:58:16 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dYVlfIrr2e2QnovEaUBh8rbUsX0
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=1eSYp_fQcWrnPfLS7nMa=V78eyPU0avKDPJ0TJJXVHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 643479d8-feff-4e45-8828-e5acf7a2f443
X-Archives-Hash: c7704dc833702ed3c85a8a28733e3043
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
<mva@mva.name> wrote:
> Hey, all!
>
> Just one question: why do you all talking about IUSE=+oldnet, but not
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( net oldnet )" for example?
It it isn't necessary for a system to have support for either oldnet
or newnet. Sure, it is rare these days, but networking support should
be a default, not a requirement.
The USE default seems pretty reasonable to me. By all means use an
ewarn when neither is set, but it shouldn't be an error. If we must,
a news item might help, but I think that is pushing it. A better news
item would be explaining the perils of USE=-*.
Rich