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 6B8A4138247 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85069E0C4F; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com (mail-oa0-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C16FE0C4D for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:32:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i4so15042199oah.8 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:32:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=2r2VgWy9btAjVb46YQR8r0fraOiqcdLQAYrBLav9pyI=; b=mbMjN/osgjMNBfRzIPuxXEVmzPN9L5ujQT+USLKs8t5drBz1E7NhgHno7b4y8CdMKO B+Bu78QWy45R1tCEjaQ8rUXseLGYW9WUJcnNfnB/cLAf1Rk8yeBP/jmWwi/5LWm77kj4 tc3h4cVbqA092J1G5zcrJugs1VUzWHOiQXjh6/O54ycFJ3rGSYh3g3dz/BG+ygwrMGkE GHp6v63y9W77hHfgTtGzaLmlK1f1fkgffTeIB+wF2OueQSCBKUV0wrZAxpjs5Gd/TxgX M/JLB+zO8U+88hFBUsD4Kh+KklIVKlwTijgFagkYeK2owgCIaAO9eyB9B6/TJF9oASNJ OtOw== 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 10.182.220.99 with SMTP id pv3mr10686515obc.37.1386091930370; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:32:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.20.1 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:32:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.20.1 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:32:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> <20131202202845.GA8574@linux1> <529CF973.2020008@gentoo.org> <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:32:10 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up From: Alexander V Vershilov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399ab922c92704eca4ad99 X-Archives-Salt: 35dcdcc7-0baf-4b66-8627-7f3d5318369b X-Archives-Hash: 138146a2d0322e68a266cafea7d90e56 --14dae9399ab922c92704eca4ad99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...] > >> Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc > >> use flag is temporary. > > > >> I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along with a > >> newsitem that instructed you to emerge the netifrc package if you > >> want the legacy network stack, but some users/devs felt that > >> Ishould go further to make sure netifrc remains installed on > >> their systems. > > > > As one of those devs, I feel now may be a good time to ask.... What > > are we doing about this? In my opinion, anyone removing net > > support from the stage3's should be killed with fire. That said, I > > don't care if it's netifrc or whatever as long as it is properly > > documented and actually usable. > > > > Thoughts on how we move forward? > > > > Thanks, Zero > > > > Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default > networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? IMO that should > remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion. I personally like netifrc default but there is no good way to use it as default we will need to keep use flag arbitrary long or add netifrc to @system but it will return us back to the problems of users who doesn't want to have netifrc on their systems. And with the rise of systems and NM the number of such users will grow. Anyway I'd like to see base system herd vote. > > After deciding that, I expect we should decide how to include it. My > guess would be, since for whatever reason we don't want netifrc as > part of @system or a dep of baselayout-2 or anything like that, we'd > need to add it to the special releng include list? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlKc+qEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAu6AD/RpeD8NsMsjt4X5EKYe6Tkixu > 6qzCONtd44U+grcxKr0BALw1EaxdI/EQ+Fo3eASssQ8fUH/dRFus5EUPo46dPz0L > =Bmfz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > --14dae9399ab922c92704eca4ad99 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> > On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...]
> >> Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifr= c
> >> use flag is temporary.
> >
> >> I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along with a > >> newsitem that instructed you to emerge the netifrc package if= you
> >> want the legacy network stack, but some users/devs felt that<= br> > >> Ishould go further to make sure netifrc remains installed on<= br> > >> their systems.
> >
> > As one of those devs, I feel now may be a good time to ask.... Wh= at
> > are we doing about this? =C2=A0In my opinion, anyone removing net=
> > support from the stage3's should be killed with fire. =C2=A0T= hat said, I
> > don't care if it's netifrc or whatever as long as it is p= roperly
> > documented and actually usable.
> >
> > Thoughts on how we move forward?
> >
> > Thanks, Zero
> >
>
> Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default
> networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? =C2=A0IMO that should=
> remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion.

I personally like netifrc default but there is no good way = to use it as default we will need to keep use flag arbitrary long or add ne= tifrc to @system but it will return us back to the problems of users who do= esn't want to have netifrc on their systems. And with the rise of syste= ms and NM the number of such users will grow. Anyway I'd like to see ba= se system herd vote.
>
> After deciding that, I expect we should decide how to include it. =C2= =A0My
> guess would be, since for whatever reason we don't want netifrc as=
> part of @system or a dep of baselayout-2 or anything like that, we'= ;d
> need to add it to the special releng include list?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlKc+qEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAu6AD/RpeD8NsMsjt4X5EKYe6Tkixu
> 6qzCONtd44U+grcxKr0BALw1EaxdI/EQ+Fo3eASssQ8fUH/dRFus5EUPo46dPz0L
> =3DBmfz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--14dae9399ab922c92704eca4ad99--