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 CE3D5138247 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E893E0ACC; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:03 +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 42317E0A9D for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 2127) id 58B7633F56B; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAC633F526 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC) From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up In-Reply-To: <20131214201347.GA27029@linux1> Message-ID: References: <529CFAA1.7080608@gentoo.org> <20131203211130.GA31972@linux1> <52A2B788.3040409@gentoo.org> <20131208222552.GA22567@linux1> <52A5D89A.4080506@gentoo.org> <52A62062.9030109@gentoo.org> <20131211025755.GA23458@linux1> <20131214201347.GA27029@linux1> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) 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 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: b9e122db-e77a-4557-9dc6-1c3d37660021 X-Archives-Hash: 1b040da84fbd0a114bb1291d751b0e44 On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:56:33AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a >>> default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the >>> netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any >>> reason. >> >> William, >> >> the "push" for the use flag was to ensure that users would keep the >> existing networking functionaility and more importantly their network >> configuration. Without it, portage would "happily" clean /etc/conf.d/net - >> something not desirable by most. > > Hi Jorge, > > Portage will not clean /etc/conf.d/net, and this is not related to the > use flag. That is handled by the block starting at line 212 in > openrc-0.12.4.ebuild. I had to modify the file so portage > wouldn't remove it. Ah, that's good to know. I mentioned /etc/conf.d/net as you know I lost it on a production box when the new openrc with netifrc was initially released. It's good to know that was fixed on a different way. > The push for the use flag was because people didn't think it was enough > for me to put out a news item telling them that they should emerge > netifrc if they wanted to continue using it once this version of OpenRC > was installed. OK, I see what you mean. To be clear, I'm not ready to have a stage3 without netifrc. If / when we update catalyst so that the new stage3 is the sum of @system and additional packages, we can move netifrc to that list. > William Jorge