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 EDB89138247 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DD53E0E59; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:17:48 +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 A5627E0E14 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:17:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (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 A9E0333F441 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so28207885iec.16 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:17:45 -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=ZCFc7DLaEXDp0ylvpMfA6XrfrGv9atOAbbo9Za88M+o=; b=Is68o41oEdYioBUy3DhcYMWsxrdOfud6vTfMB4DAW19sOfAfRSGD2dXpsdHm3QxIvJ Cm+f3btnDZJ+Q2OsLzjrnJk3PtJI36le+Bp7CdNsgMM0nCv2/SXcnS1Mjd1OVzuDH/Tc VhGDDv1BQJWIxNg2d8ZDg/FZ7UDNi9Kez9cIHRLzClW643IfLeuUoYc3/6rACvHenhey JaT01fXY6+1Sd582XHpG+6xR5PQvdQVwZw8QKbZINV8I+ZBwxyl9ymg89OnqFvQ6lhai DGyH16xWxXH4NcElVCE4mE6hPlJej/B/3l8VMGQCX8kuFvhtqG2mtQ6LEIVPZssku8eg TjPw== 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 10.50.178.202 with SMTP id da10mr3386227igc.44.1386202665155; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:17:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.139.5 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:17:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <529FBE92.4000003@gentoo.org> 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> <529FBE92.4000003@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:17:45 -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: ead36b61-8adb-4e10-b4cf-eb2d9aa9ef47 X-Archives-Hash: ee23854754523c8a204663e482050849 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> 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? >> > Well ... > > I remember filing a bug quite a while ago because we didn't have a dhcp > client included anymore. This made installs quite annoying because > before it was stage3, kernel, bootloader, go! > > And now it was go ... stop ... reboot ... install dhcp client ... > grremblwrrxrmkrxtlmrrrg .... reboot > > That extra step of whining was loud enough to have openrc fixed to be > able to use busybox udhcp, so that "out of the box" most network worked. > > ... and now people are trying to do the same again. > > I would STRONGLY recommend having a working network setup included in > stage3, so that compared to now nothing changes. > > Yeah, after some further thought, I'm inclined to agree.