[gentoo-dev] rfc: removing newnet from openrc

[gentoo-dev] rfc: removing newnet from openrc

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

All,

openrc has two network stacks currently.  The first is the one most
people are using afaik, the net.* scripts, which I will call oldnet in
the rest of this message.

The second is the network and staticroute scripts, which we do not use
or support in gentoo, primarily because it  does not allow the
flexability of the oldnet scripts. I will call these scripts newnet.

If there are no objections, I want to remove the newnet scripts before
the next release.

What does everyone think?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: removing newnet from openrc

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/10/11 02:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> openrc has two network stacks currently.  The first is the one most
> people are using afaik, the net.* scripts, which I will call oldnet in
> the rest of this message.
> 
> The second is the network and staticroute scripts, which we do not use
> or support in gentoo, primarily because it  does not allow the
> flexability of the oldnet scripts. I will call these scripts newnet.
> 
> If there are no objections, I want to remove the newnet scripts before
> the next release.
> 
> What does everyone think?
> 
> William
> 

It's been a while since I hung out in #gentoo, but one of the last times
I was there (say, July?), there were people supporting the use of the
newnet method (and i *think* were actually trying to get people to switch).

Personally, I prefer oldnet and would support the removal of newnet.

Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk6oV7EACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1QpAEAqK8u6Lbz4XAOoPTmibdbgwmy
7aJj5O5wBjb4ASVfDbEA/iQgNkd1seB9IeBTz8d+/xEclg4ZDHgVv+wX4AnZIJs/
=PZL7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: removing newnet from openrc

[Mike Frysinger]

i'm indifferent to the newnet status
-mike

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: removing newnet from openrc

[Duncan]

Ian Stakenvicius posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:45 -0400 as excerpted:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 26/10/11 02:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> openrc has two network stacks currently.  The first is the one most
>> people are using afaik, the net.* scripts, which I will call oldnet in
>> the rest of this message.
>> 
>> The second is the network and staticroute scripts, which we do not use
>> or support in gentoo, primarily because it  does not allow the
>> flexability of the oldnet scripts. I will call these scripts newnet.
>> 
>> If there are no objections, I want to remove the newnet scripts before
>> the next release.

> It's been a while since I hung out in #gentoo, but one of the last times
> I was there (say, July?), there were people supporting the use of the
> newnet method (and i *think* were actually trying to get people to
> switch).
> 
> Personally, I prefer oldnet and would support the removal of newnet.

++

As with Ian I'd personally just as soon kill newnet, but...

AFAIK, this came up once before, during the stabilization discussion, and 
each method had some users.

AFAIK newnet has never been officially supported in stable, and even in 
~arch, it has been only the most forward leaning users that will have 
switched, so IMO a news item isn't required as I'd otherwise suggest.  
But a warning would still be useful, just in case, and I'd suggest a 
deprecation/removal warning similar to that for tree-cleaning, 30 days 
minimum, 60 days preferred.

I'm not sure what you mean by "release", 0.9.4, or 0.10.0, and the 
planned release schedule.

If you intended killing it by 0.9.4, I'd suggest warning with that (and 
do a stable 0.8.X-rY bump with the warning too, just in case, if 0.9 
isn't in-process for stabilization already), with removal to be first 
release next year (2012).  If you do that within a week or so (both 
upstream and gentoo), that will leave a full 60 days of warning.

If you were thinking about doing a 0.10 right away and keeping that 
around for awhile, that could be more troublesome or less, depending on 
perspective.  I still think I'd try for a 0.9.4 (and 0.8.x-ry) right away 
with the warning, delaying 0.10 a bit if necessary, and give it at least 
that 30 days.  With a full 0.x bump, users should be prepared for a few 
more major changes, and a 30-day warning can be argued to be sufficient.

If you per chance were planning a 1.0, I'd say do it, without newnet, but 
keep it masked for 30-60 days, during which the warnings can be running.  
In that case, if appropriate, the warning can suggest unmasking 1.0 when 
ready to upgrade, if they're still on oldnet or ready to revert back, 
again, mentioning that it'll be unmasked on <date>, perhaps January 1, 
2012.

That assumes that while newnet's not "supported", there's no existing 
warnings about using it.  If there are, and they've been there since 
stabilization, then yeah, kill it, no further warning needed.  (But, I'd 
have thought you'd have mentioned it if that were the case, thus 
assumption that it's not.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman