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 78B2B13827E for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:34:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C9DAE0AED; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74F06E09B8 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oz11so4336111veb.18 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:33:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=L7WEtU+8KX/Lreke79K1qdtmimVMFzjdPSTflDaaXIE=; b=jXUkTxaTwbXj7+JkT0fmn8DDOZe0L/qQ98q4f0GY2uIgklNYi5xMvSY+0ioTqFUzf9 RbKqzzUWnC89NdWD1lUdE0YU5sCaYWfEMiIAuqcS8LqV+kQ2KUvJ+I8/ALetjvE4li0+ 1SCjt4+3QrVRNOL44DOwK2VNTOVT4FOkg3gjbE/RRQ9O/8DoacAVQCuJEChcp4VedBJY GJ9d/avJr9Pi3hrJoTYeiggo+uQrkOpOCOWFOX/n+OoDJm1m1gvx50HppI3BMPNAcncd PxhyaScTssacz4z6+gQvH1QWIRro2eaxvAhMYbKAD+SC+YgOiBVy/8ViG48teEAOfqNX c0dg== 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 10.52.245.132 with SMTP id xo4mr458341vdc.64.1386639227691; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:33:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.112.99 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:33:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52A62062.9030109@gentoo.org> References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <52A2B788.3040409@gentoo.org> <20131208222552.GA22567@linux1> <52A5D89A.4080506@gentoo.org> <52A62062.9030109@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:33:47 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SMZRAvgdOGR4pzNHoGufoaoCSoo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 656f2c3b-55e0-4d0e-8eaa-627c6b0ae373 X-Archives-Hash: 6b8683f0b3771f07e8f8bba546299541 On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by > default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as > networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a > stage3 on a device and then access it from the network? Hit your head on the wall because it doesn't contain a kernel? Stage3s in general aren't functional systems. > I really feel that while the rest of the world is trying to get > more functionality out of their hardware we are trying to save ~200k and > possibly crippling user experience in the process. The rest of the world would just stick systemd, dbus, pulseaudio, xorg, an initramfs, every kernel module under the sun, ndiswrapper, 300 windows driver blobs, and a network manager that uses gtk+ to configure your network on the stage3. That is how they get more functionality out of their hardware. It just isn't the Gentoo way. :) > > Is removing ~200k really worth the potential downside? Honestly, if we > are going on the merits of smaller downloads let's argue about using xz > instead of bzip2 for the stages... I'm not concerned about space use at all. I think the main argument for leaving oldnet on the stage3s is that it doesn't do anything if you don't symlink it, just like openssh. If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think there would be more of a case for removing it. Rich