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 A3EAD138247 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EC62E0E2F; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:36:41 +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 98E2EE0DFA for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) (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 80E8E33DACA for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so28621267iej.28 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:36:38 -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=Mw9bDcPgvLiJUa7gI3+oWhe7X5KJgublz9H940SNJ1g=; b=DsJfbXDAIcmBFCLu0G0r+HHHUAY8Mr7UXmL+ZgYwkk3ZFj/s/HsAqOHelgXmFihGHr c2qgzA9bprX4RcEgtc0b1L5TA1cMmN7UvCm2ODi5l+1Bxcxdr9WX7dNvBMOdaPeB2lkk 7Q1WgkbL9qaejWhzRHM/EEN3UxLKUkNIXkiqtNjGTvZVCMT4jjs9vXnh1KImocbYUO6E KO0KX/vdJXtdf1H3MIvM937seFTL/BCgvQSTyfMIC5l+wmR0FJiEr41vMtxmNDahUGXh loj60SjLJp0fH+La5kEBF+Bd+aJOKNHX35wimieh0//SqYFHF6hmLbpdpjNi/b76zk4Z ikJg== 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 10.43.52.129 with SMTP id vm1mr36186691icb.10.1386196598038; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:36:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.139.5 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:36:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131204223152.GA19756@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> <20131204223152.GA19756@linux1> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:36:37 -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: 30ea21e5-16e0-4d71-b3d5-92712a715ff9 X-Archives-Hash: b0ea3df6dca906998c0061674cc00e9d On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, 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? > > Personally, I don't know of one. Does anyone else? > Thinking on this further, the same logic could be applied to sys-apps/openrc, and probably a few other packages that are not build/toolchain critical. I suppose we need to draw a sanity line somewhere. ^_^