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 88F70138247 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22CD3E0996; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C675E096B for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h16so11881770oag.39 for ; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 02:36:31 -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=nguI6d90cgTX1HNgTpgBevBEZgInGEXXyEBdSEuo5NA=; b=Cxt6XCwG9l/GNA6QXBljkX+K3jZYm0/XvbfjMtTPBJPqacqx60MSf5gKMaywEA05dK EMzctO+srMDCfIrVlH2EEK7MZsX6uKfiJw2NpR1GARk73l1ORl12yRqL6cdmlwDQj9iz 076VFT77zd9cj4hC/XLzbVlX/5h/xfsj+/dArpPyNSFz+XGbGJT8XIIdjPwqm9mBu4E+ 9xQUU2QgVJbcvS3/HYh6a6+cHhTPs+MuNoX5JX5nQvDq5frFd2ICGS5kChcrOS35HFQj rJJbwh7sp94P2+rsQ6Cy0OG4zIXYgsEbMKwOiS7OJ+tos6POBZ30yVTseMSq33kUXGSH by7g== 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 10.182.213.97 with SMTP id nr1mr676594obc.48.1385894191364; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 02:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.137.234 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.137.234 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:36:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> References: <20131201102015.GA1219@egeo> Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 14:36:31 +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=001a11c20afcf9007304ec76a2f8 X-Archives-Salt: f2f301fa-31e6-4f45-a3aa-0379e0089c8e X-Archives-Hash: f7f963405f5af8826ab56332443e89d3 --001a11c20afcf9007304ec76a2f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The only one unclear case is 4 (+netifrc +newnet) in this case stack that is used is set by enabling required stack by rc-update. Case 3 means that openrc doesn't provide default network stack and it's up to user which stack to use (e.g. NM), so no problem here. Also +netifrc flag is temporal to make update path clean and it may be removed in future. On Dec 1, 2013 2:20 PM, "Alessandro DE LAURENZIS" wrote: > I've just upgraded to the latest openrc version; I was aware of the > netifrc USE flag introduction > (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275748). But so far > the presence of the newnet flag was actually a "switch" between the old > and the new network stack, given that one of the two should (must?) be > added in any case. > Now the presence of both netifrc and newnet could make a bit of > confusion, particularly from a user perspective. We have of course 4 > cases; two of them are clear: > 1) netifrc -newnet: "legacy" network stack; > 2) -netifrc newnet: "new" network stack. > > The other two cases need a clarification: > 3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!? > 4) netifrc newnet: ??? > > This should be definitely documented somewhere (I didn't find anything). > > And, the last question: what's the point to have two flags instead the > good old one? > > Thanks for any clarification. > > -- > Alessandro DE LAURENZIS > [mailto:just22.adl@gmail.com] > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis > > --001a11c20afcf9007304ec76a2f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The only one unclear case is 4 (+netifrc +newnet) in this c= ase stack that is used is set by enabling required stack by rc-update. Case= 3 means that openrc doesn't provide default network stack and it's= up to user which stack to use (e.g. NM), so no problem here.
Also +netifrc flag is temporal to make update path clean and it may be remo= ved in future.

On Dec 1, 2013 2:20 PM, "Alessandro DE LAUR= ENZIS" <just22.adl@gmail.co= m> wrote:
I've just upgraded to the latest openrc version; I was aware of the
netifrc USE flag introduction
(http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275748).= But so far
the presence of the newnet flag was actually a "switch" between t= he old
and the new network stack, given that one of the two should (must?) be
added in any case.
Now the presence of both netifrc and newnet could make a bit of
confusion, particularly from a user perspective. We have of course 4
cases; two of them are clear:
1) netifrc -newnet: "legacy" network stack;
2) -netifrc newnet: "new" network stack.

The other two cases need a clarification:
3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!?
4) netifrc newnet: ???

This should be definitely documented somewhere (I didn't find anything)= .

And, the last question: what's the point to have two flags instead the<= br> good old one?

Thanks for any clarification.

--
Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
[mailto:just22.adl@gmail.com] LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis

--001a11c20afcf9007304ec76a2f8--