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 27459138247 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4562E0E3A; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:30:36 +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 7466CE0E34 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BED633F15B for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x13so26895829ief.24 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=AgAsCSKFyWQtRXEctltOtTqeUWrS5KMONiDbfnKp7Uw=; b=iyl4uDjaNjXgXmNANyQxBvKwRHNxAnICHHQTPY2y58M2DXKCCbVa31n8xq56uSre7M cH3bwr8uhHgObnRAhx71UbNZ5ltuUeFvjDkJtCWk0AG25hqX0aaAQ1j+Rbwv44UqcArw pQE+oPQoHRZtR4KGkF+Jis+jY7aDWxGU040989AsexogQhMIv0+yZ5DL9z6E33FYjZD4 JRKhgDRW2+jeOmc+xCiROz9+jQr81i4xT3YI2cZVPjJfRkte06minVrxRVSg/DNlYJ1G BtB0AhTPpNr/ASDvKEVcgGoCpcXJzX+6UMerQBh0rVUBT220/DyJVZ0sbLYEQp3dSv1q 5plw== 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 10.43.106.137 with SMTP id du9mr78875icc.93.1386192630396; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.139.5 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131204212537.GA19609@linux1> 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> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up From: Mike Gilbert To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 18521586-5dc4-40ef-9cf7-ca05912b39ea X-Archives-Hash: bb8114228a8ca7fd2668c44121c1f717 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?