[gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i dunno 
about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the 
internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.

since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've 
re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and do 
NOT remove it again.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

On Monday 27 September 2004 7:50 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
> wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i dunno
> about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
> internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.
>
> since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
> re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and do
> NOT remove it again.
I didn't do it, but dhcpcd sure isn't essential to get an internet connection. 
I've heard of various other methods such as setting a static IP, PPPoE, 
PPP/dialup, pump (BOOTP/DHCP client), etc...
IMO, removing it was a good idea.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jörg Schaible]

Travis Tilley wrote:

> wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i dunno
> about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
> internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.
> 
> since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
> re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and do
> NOT remove it again.

Just use dnsmasq and you'll have the DNS *and* DHCP server at once with much
easier config.

- Jörg


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jeff Smelser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Monday 27 September 2004 02:50 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
> wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i dunno
> about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
> internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.

Wow, if you think dhcpcd is critical to a system, such as ifconfig, we have a 
serious problem..

> since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
> re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and do
> NOT remove it again.

I think it was a good move.. So many ways to get an ip.. dhcpcd is just YOUR 
way, not everyones way.. I thought thats was gentoo was about?

Jeff

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Donnie Berkholz]

On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:24, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> On 2004-09-27 17:10:06 -0400 Jeff Smelser <tradergt@smelser.org> wrote:
> >> No, it's Gentoo's way of getting an IP via dhcp.
> > 
> > Ah, what about the other options? I may not want to use dhcpcd.
> Yes, I agree.  dhcpcd offers the least nice functionality of the 
> available dhcp client.
> 
> However the functioning of base system scripts depend on it.  I do not 
> know if they did or not, but did the person who removed dhcpcd from 
> the system profile also edit the /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (the default 
> one) script to politely bomb out and explain to the user that they 
> need to install dhcpcd if "dhcp" is set for that interface in 
> /etc/conf.d/net?

Why don't you search for and/or file a bug on this?
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Anthony Gorecki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 377 bytes --]

On Monday 27 September 2004 1:35 pm, Jeff Smelser wrote:
> I think it was a good move.. So many ways to get an ip.. dhcpcd is just
> YOUR way, not everyones way.. I thought thats was gentoo was about?

I agree. Using static IP addresses on internal networks, I would much prefer 
not to have DHCP installed needlessly.


-- 
Anthony Gorecki
Ectro-Linux Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Elfyn McBratney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 27 Sep 2004 21:49, Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> On Monday 27 September 2004 1:35 pm, Jeff Smelser wrote:
> > I think it was a good move.. So many ways to get an ip.. dhcpcd is just
> > YOUR way, not everyones way.. I thought thats was gentoo was about?
>
> I agree. Using static IP addresses on internal networks, I would much
> prefer not to have DHCP installed needlessly.

It's not exactly needless, though, is it?  It's needed by the some of the net. 
(just eth0?) init scripts, at least.

Elfyn

- -- 
Elfyn McBratney
beu on irc.freenode.net/savannah.[non]gnu.org

PGP Key ID: 0x456548B4
PGP Key Fingerprint:
  29D5 91BB 8748 7CC9 650F 31FE 6888 0C2A 4565 48B4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBWICHaIgMKkVlSLQRAoutAJ4739CE6182rI4bz8rQQaBwLX+2TQCbB9xp
Vf5XyFqICouvyb6gXylg5LE=
=ToyH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-09-27 16:35:39 -0400 Jeff Smelser <tradergt@smelser.org> wrote:
> I think it was a good move.. So many ways to get an ip.. dhcpcd is 
> just YOUR 
> way, not everyones way.. I thought thats was gentoo was about?

No, it's Gentoo's way of getting an IP via dhcp.

Gentoo's default /etc/init.d/net.<device> scripts offer DHCP support.  
One DHCP capable client, and support for it, has to be in the system 
profile, then, imho.  I thought this was dhcpcd.  If the default 
system scripts support a feature, all necessary software for that 
feature should be in a system profile.  This is basically the whole 
idea of RDEPEND in general, no? ;-)

Yes, one of the things Gentoo is "all about" is the whole "your way" 
factor ... It's pretty well known what the net.<device> scripts 
support though, and I am wondering if these were also editted to work 
with a new dhcp client when dhcpcd was removed.

I am fond of dhclient ... but that DNS and DHCP client mentioned 
sounding intriguing....

__armando
P.S. I would love to see a move dynamic network configuration 
interface/scripts in Gentoo ... especially in regards to mobile 
computers/"profile" switching; granted these tools exist in portage, 
but they don't exactly integrate well "out of the box".  Actually, 
that's kind of my point, I guess: removing dhcpcd sort of ruins the 
"out of the box"-ness of a new Gentoo install.  Imagine how annoying 
it would be if you booted the install disc, got a dhcp address, and 
then _didn't_ have dhcpcd when you started your new system for the 
first time.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jeff Smelser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1748 bytes --]

On Monday 27 September 2004 04:05 pm, Armando Di Cianno wrote:

> No, it's Gentoo's way of getting an IP via dhcp.

Ah, what about the other options? I may not want to use dhcpcd.

> Gentoo's default /etc/init.d/net.<device> scripts offer DHCP support.
> One DHCP capable client, and support for it, has to be in the system
> profile, then, imho.  I thought this was dhcpcd.  If the default
> system scripts support a feature, all necessary software for that
> feature should be in a system profile.  This is basically the whole
> idea of RDEPEND in general, no? ;-)

The key word is option.. Which translates to me, optional.. Putting it in the 
system profile means I am stuck with it.. Thats the point..

> __armando
> P.S. I would love to see a move dynamic network configuration
> interface/scripts in Gentoo ... especially in regards to mobile
> computers/"profile" switching; granted these tools exist in portage,
> but they don't exactly integrate well "out of the box".  Actually,
> that's kind of my point, I guess: removing dhcpcd sort of ruins the
> "out of the box"-ness of a new Gentoo install.  Imagine how annoying
> it would be if you booted the install disc, got a dhcp address, and
> then _didn't_ have dhcpcd when you started your new system for the
> first time.

Well, thats called docs.. You tell the person to install what they need for 
networking in the install docs.. Its that simple.. 

And I don't want to hear, blah blah, they dont follow the docs.. Thats their 
problem.. They cant read the docs, thats their risk.. Hell, how many times I 
see in gentoo-user which says:

Cant boot system.. Error /dev/ROOT.. (shortening it obviously)

clearly, not reading a damn thing..

Jeff

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-09-27 17:10:06 -0400 Jeff Smelser <tradergt@smelser.org> wrote:
>> No, it's Gentoo's way of getting an IP via dhcp.
> 
> Ah, what about the other options? I may not want to use dhcpcd.
Yes, I agree.  dhcpcd offers the least nice functionality of the 
available dhcp client.

However the functioning of base system scripts depend on it.  I do not 
know if they did or not, but did the person who removed dhcpcd from 
the system profile also edit the /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (the default 
one) script to politely bomb out and explain to the user that they 
need to install dhcpcd if "dhcp" is set for that interface in 
/etc/conf.d/net?

> The key word is option.. Which translates to me, optional.. Putting 
> it in the 
> system profile means I am stuck with it.. Thats the point..

Yes, by that standard, networking at all is optional.  'emerge --sync' 
depends on an active network connection, but choosing to 'emerge 
--sync' is optional, after the first time, too, no?  So we should take 
out _all_ network scripts then, yes?  And heck, they are soooooo 
ethernet biased.  Ethernet is an option as well, .....

.... I think you get the point.

All in all, the major system profiles (i.e. the ones user's use every 
day) should have support for reasonable base services.  If a specific 
user wants to roll out an install/cd/whatever, they should know enough 
to create there own profile, use of a dhcp client being the first 
thing they can take out.

__Armando



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Duncan]

Luke-Jr posted <200409272020.58709.luke-jr@utopios.org>, excerpted below,
on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:20:55 +0000:

> On Monday 27 September 2004 7:50 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
>> wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i
>> dunno about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
>> internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.
>>
>> since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
>> re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and
>> do NOT remove it again.
> I didn't do it, but dhcpcd sure isn't essential to get an internet
> connection. I've heard of various other methods such as setting a static
> IP, PPPoE, PPP/dialup, pump (BOOTP/DHCP client), etc... IMO, removing it
> was a good idea.

No kidding.  I'm on amd64 here, and don't need nor want dhcp-anything.  It
doesn't belong in the default profile, any more than NetBIOS over TCP/IP
belongs in the MS default profile.  If it's not needed, as it isn't for
many folks, it shouldn't be installed, for security reasons.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:30 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
| it shouldn't be installed, for security reasons.

What security reasons would those be?

(Couldn't care less about the rest of the argument)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 893 bytes --]

OK this is starting to grate at this point.  Check your attitude at the
door, Travis.  Seriously.  From licking swamps to now crack monkeys. 
How about you do US a favour for a change and switch your attitude and
the way you address your fellow developers.  If you wanted to know who
was responsible all you had to do was check the CVS log and address it. 
If you thought it was a wider problem, then well, there are MUCH
healthier ways than "wtf crack monkey."  

Besides which you happen to BE on the base-system alias and therefore
receive the bug mails for it.  Look back through the weekend mails and
you'll see an actual (GASP! SHOCK! AWE!) _BUG REPORT_ with that request.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted <20040927225631.628b169a@snowdrop.home>, excerpted
below,  on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:56:31 +0100:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:30 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> | it shouldn't be installed, for security reasons.
> 
> What security reasons would those be?

Just the usual basic don't install what you don't need, and you have fewer
things to worry about having exploitable holes in them, concept.  (Didn't
I read someone on this group/list claiming that Gentoo had a no
unnecessary daemons policy, just yesterday?)

I thought the "if it's not needed, it shouldn't be installed for security
reasons" was clear enough.  However, upon rereading, I guess it /could/ be
taken that there was something more specific to worry about, tho I didn't
say there was, from what I wrote.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> OK this is starting to grate at this point.  Check your attitude at the
> door, Travis.  Seriously.  From licking swamps to now crack monkeys. 
> How about you do US a favour for a change and switch your attitude and
> the way you address your fellow developers.

apologies. i do admit that i'm a bit difficult to deal with sometimes. I 
greet my best friend with worse, and I -like- him. though perhaps i 
should tone it down just a bit. ;)

> Besides which you happen to BE on the base-system alias and therefore
> receive the bug mails for it.  Look back through the weekend mails and
> you'll see an actual (GASP! SHOCK! AWE!) _BUG REPORT_ with that request.

i have 1059 unread mails in my bugzilla box. it gets too much for me to 
poke through all of it, and base-system isnt something i usually worry 
about until a problem smacks me in the face.



now about the problem of removing/having dhcpcd... do our init scripts 
even support using anything else? and if it's not part of the base 
system... why even support it at all in the base system? shouldnt the 
support scripts be part of dhcpcd then?


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 27 September 2004 04:35 pm, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Just use dnsmasq and you'll have the DNS *and* DHCP server at once with
> much easier config.

he's talking client here, not server ;)

but yes, dnsmasq is frickin awesome
/me goes and humps dnsmasq
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 27 September 2004 05:24 pm, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> On 2004-09-27 17:10:06 -0400 Jeff Smelser <tradergt@smelser.org> wrote:
> >> No, it's Gentoo's way of getting an IP via dhcp.
> >
> > Ah, what about the other options? I may not want to use dhcpcd.
>
> Yes, I agree.  dhcpcd offers the least nice functionality of the
> available dhcp client.
>
> However the functioning of base system scripts depend on it.  I do not
> know if they did or not, but did the person who removed dhcpcd from
> the system profile also edit the /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (the default
> one) script to politely bomb out and explain to the user that they
> need to install dhcpcd if "dhcp" is set for that interface in
> /etc/conf.d/net?

what are you talking about ?  baselayout by *no* means depends on dhcpcd

the lastest versions dont enable anything by default ... you want dhcp, you 
enable it ... plus, it even supports more than just dhcpcd (oh wait, there's 
no virtual/dhcpc ...)

a little snippit:
# DHCP can be provided by dhcpcd (default), dhclient, udhcpc or pump
#   
# dhcpcd:   emerge net-misc/dhcpcd
# dhclient: emerge net-misc/dhcp   and modules=( "dhclient" ) above
# udhcp:    emerge net-misc/udhcp  and modules=( "udhcp" ) above
# pump:     emerge net-misc/pump   and modules=( "pump" ) above

> .... I think you get the point.

no, we dont ... the point is, you want dhcp, you emerge it
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 27 September 2004 09:56 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
> now about the problem of removing/having dhcpcd... do our init scripts
> even support using anything else? and if it's not part of the base
> system... why even support it at all in the base system? shouldnt the
> support scripts be part of dhcpcd then?

yes, we support 4 different dhcp clients atm (i dont know if we have any 
others in portage ... i'm a little familiar with only the 4 we support atm)

from /etc/conf.d/net.example
# dhcpcd:   emerge net-misc/dhcpcd
# dhclient: emerge net-misc/dhcp   and modules=( "dhclient" ) above
# udhcp:    emerge net-misc/udhcp  and modules=( "udhcp" ) above
# pump:     emerge net-misc/pump   and modules=( "pump" ) above

i mean, in the end, all we really have to do is update our handbook to say 
'emerge net-misc/dhcp if you want to use dhcp'
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-09-27 22:27:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> what are you talking about ?  baselayout by *no* means depends on 
> dhcpcd
> 
> the lastest versions dont enable anything by default ... you want 
> dhcp, you 
> enable it ... plus, it even supports more than just dhcpcd (oh wait, 
> there's 
> no virtual/dhcpc ...)

armando@mudra armando $ qpkg -f /etc/conf.d/net -v
net-dialup/ppp-2.4.1-r14 *
sys-apps/baselayout-1.9.4-r3 *

armando@mudra Projects $ sudo emerge -f baselayout
Calculating dependencies   ...done!
>>> emerge (1 of 1) sys-apps/baselayout-1.9.4-r3 to /
>>> Previously fetched file: sysvinit-2.84.tar.gz MD5 ;-)
>>> Previously fetched file: rc-scripts-1.4.16.tar.bz2 MD5 ;-)
>>> md5 src_uri ;-) sysvinit-2.84.tar.gz
>>> md5 src_uri ;-) rc-scripts-1.4.16.tar.bz2

tar xjvf rc-scripts...tar.bz2:/etc/conf.d/net
<snip>
# For DHCP set iface_eth? to "dhcp"
# For passing options to dhcpcd use dhcpcd_eth?
#
#iface_eth0="dhcp"
#dhcpcd_eth0="..."^[
</snip>

_That_ is what I'm talking about.  Baselayout not only run-time 
depends on having dhcp, but specifically depends on the package 
"dhcpcd".  What's more ...

Now, as for /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (the default installed)
<snip>
47: #   dhcpcd_IFACE            (command-line args for dhcpcd)
54: #   ifconfig_fallback_IFACE (fallback ifconfig if dhcp fails)
57: eval dhcpcd_IFACE=\"\$\{dhcpcd_$iface\}\"
91: if [[ ${ifconfig_IFACE} != dhcp ]]; then
109: /sbin/dhcpcd ${dhcpcd_IFACE} ${IFACE}
213: if [[ -z ${aliases} && -z ${inet6} && ! -e 
/var/run/dhcpcd-${IFACE}.pid ]]; then
241: if /sbin/dhcpcd -z ${i} &>${devnull}; then
244: /sbin/dhcpcd -z ${i} &>${devnull} || break
260: local status_IFACE vlans_IFACE dhcpcd_IFACE
</snip>

> no, we dont ... the point is, you want dhcp, you emerge it
> -mike

No, the point is, baselayout is {checking now...okay, checked the 
baselayout ebuild} failing to set an RDEPEND on net-misc/dhcpcd.

This can be solved in a number of ways: a "support-net-dhcp" type use 
flag, adding configurable support to baselayout, and then supports 
scripts to a possible virtual/dhcp-client, etc.

Either way, there are discrepencies, which is the cause of contention 
of both why it is bad that it was removed, and our differences in 
viewing what function the packages should be doing.

__Armando


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 27 September 2004 11:22 pm, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> _That_ is what I'm talking about.  Baselayout not only run-time
> depends on having dhcp, but specifically depends on the package
> "dhcpcd".  What's more ...

that's why i said newer versions handle more than just dhcpcd properly

> No, the point is, baselayout is {checking now...okay, checked the
> baselayout ebuild} failing to set an RDEPEND on net-misc/dhcpcd.

why ? you dont use dhcpcd, baselayout works FINE

you use dhcpcd, just emerge it and bam, dhcp supports works FINE

baselayout has a ton of other optional features, you going to require every 
single package to be installed on a user's system just because somewhere in 
the baselayout code that package is run ?  no, that user will never use that 
package, so why should they have it installed ?
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> This can be solved in a number of ways: a "support-net-dhcp" type use 
> flag, adding configurable support to baselayout, and then supports 
> scripts to a possible virtual/dhcp-client, etc.

...actually, if we want to remove dhcpcd from system, i would love to 
see something like this in baselayout.
PDEPEND="!build ( dhcp-client? ( virtual/dhcp-client ) )"
...or something similar. that way a default virtual can be added, 
dhcp-client can be in a profile's USE, and a user could uninstall (or 
just not install) it without the profile forcing it to be part of the 
system profile. the best of both sides... maybe?

feel free to beat me with something if i'm totally wrong here. :)


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Anthony Gorecki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

On Monday 27 September 2004 8:25 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> baselayout has a ton of other optional features, you going to require every
> single package to be installed on a user's system just because somewhere in
> the baselayout code that package is run ?  no, that user will never use
> that package, so why should they have it installed ?

Precisely. There is nothing wrong with convenience and ease of use, but once 
the convenience granted to only a portion of the users implies including 
unnecessary packages for everyone else, it's crossed the line. It doesn't 
take any effort to type an emerge command to merge the package if it's 
needed; why force it on people who have no use for it?


-- 
Anthony Gorecki
Ectro-Linux Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-09-27 23:25:18 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> baselayout has a ton of other optional features, you going to require 
> every 
> single package to be installed on a user's system just because 
> somewhere in 
> the baselayout code that package is run ?  no, that user will never 
> use that 
> package, so why should they have it installed ?

I do understand what you're saying, I just (and maybe it's just for 
this version of baselayout I'm using) can't see how dhcpcd isn't an 
RDEPEND of baselayout per the files I descrbied above.  Baselayout, 
once installed, can be configured in such a way that it dies if dhcp 
is turned on.

I guess this (dhcp or any other "hard-coded"-yet-optional function) 
just should be a USE flag or similar.  But I think we both understand 
what the other is saying, so I'll stop polluting everyone's mailboxen 
now. ;-)

__armando


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Stuart Stegall]

I'm no gentoo developer, but there are many packages that can optionally utilize programs that they do not and should not RDEPEND. 
A good example would be the CPAN.pm perl module (included in perl by default).  It allows you to configure it to use ftp, ncftp, 
lynx, and others as optional programs to download module files, this really isn't that different from what baselayout is doing with 
dhcp.  Portage's make.conf.example has lukemftp and proz as options to fetch files; distcc and ccache are portage FEATURES, but 
portage doesn't RDEPEND on them.

Armando Di Cianno wrote:

> On 2004-09-27 23:25:18 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> baselayout has a ton of other optional features, you going to require 
>> every single package to be installed on a user's system just because 
>> somewhere in the baselayout code that package is run ?  no, that user 
>> will never use that package, so why should they have it installed ?
> 
> 
> I do understand what you're saying, I just (and maybe it's just for this 
> version of baselayout I'm using) can't see how dhcpcd isn't an RDEPEND 
> of baselayout per the files I descrbied above.  Baselayout, once 
> installed, can be configured in such a way that it dies if dhcp is 
> turned on.
> 
> I guess this (dhcp or any other "hard-coded"-yet-optional function) just 
> should be a USE flag or similar.  But I think we both understand what 
> the other is saying, so I'll stop polluting everyone's mailboxen now. ;-)
> 
> __armando
> 
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 
> 
> 



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 12:45 am, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> I guess this (dhcp or any other "hard-coded"-yet-optional function)
> just should be a USE flag or similar.  But I think we both understand
> what the other is saying, so I'll stop polluting everyone's mailboxen
> now. ;-)

it's mostly a factor of ease of use

if we install baselayout with USE=-dhcp, that means we install baselayout 
without the little bit of code that works with dhcp ... but if later you want 
dhcp, you have to 'rebuild' baselayout with USE=dhcp for that functionality

yes, this is like many other packages (you want support for something you had 
previously turned off), but considering the size saving / hassle, i dont 
think it's worth it
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Allen Parker]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:30 -0700, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Luke-Jr posted <200409272020.58709.luke-jr@utopios.org>, excerpted below,
> on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:20:55 +0000:
> 
> 
> 
> > On Monday 27 September 2004 7:50 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
> >> wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i
> >> dunno about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
> >> internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.
> >>
> >> since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
> >> re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and
> >> do NOT remove it again.
> > I didn't do it, but dhcpcd sure isn't essential to get an internet
> > connection. I've heard of various other methods such as setting a static
> > IP, PPPoE, PPP/dialup, pump (BOOTP/DHCP client), etc... IMO, removing it
> > was a good idea.
> 
> No kidding.  I'm on amd64 here, and don't need nor want dhcp-anything.  It
> doesn't belong in the default profile, any more than NetBIOS over TCP/IP
> belongs in the MS default profile.  If it's not needed, as it isn't for
> many folks, it shouldn't be installed, for security reasons.

If you think that removing dhcpcd pisses *you* off... perhaps you can
explain why there aren't any ftp/http clients on the livecds?
*someone* thought it would be a good idea... hence... i've been
"cooking" my own livecds with actual useful stuff on them... ncftp,
elinks, NO dhcpcd, automatic network configs that conform to *MY*
networks 10.0.x.x vs 192.168.x.x with default nameservers/gateways
already active... in regards to *your* configurations, travis, just
wondering, are you building dedicated machines with static public ips?
(i've done it over ssh... thanks ovh.net!)

Rarely, if ever, do I personally have a machine that *requires* dhcp
to install/setup/etc... and if i do... "emerge dhcpcd" seems to work
alright for me, y'know? I'm currently managing about 4 machines (I
know, not that many) that have dhcpcd installed on them because I
don't have the time to go fuck with the default profiles and *REMOVE*
it, despite these particular machines having static PUBLIC ips..

*your* particular dependance on dhcpcd shouldn't be the subject of
public debate. *your* particular dependance on dhcpcd should be
handled by you, on *your* personal machine by simply emerging dhcpcd
along with *your* choice of bootloader, *your* choice of system logger
and *your* choice of cron daemon.

this is the beauty of gentoo... please, leave *your* personal
preferences out of *your* decision making process when it effects
*your* users.

this isn't a flame... only a request for sanity.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 459 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 07:32, Allen Parker wrote:
> If you think that removing dhcpcd pisses *you* off... perhaps you can
> explain why there aren't any ftp/http clients on the livecds?
> *someone* thought it would be a good idea... hence... i've been
> "cooking" my own livecds with actual useful stuff on them... ncftp,
> elinks, NO dhcpcd,

Really? lynx/links and wget have always worked for me from the LiveCDs.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 11:08 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 07:32, Allen Parker wrote:
> > If you think that removing dhcpcd pisses *you* off... perhaps you can
> > explain why there aren't any ftp/http clients on the livecds?
> > *someone* thought it would be a good idea... hence... i've been
> > "cooking" my own livecds with actual useful stuff on them... ncftp,
> > elinks, NO dhcpcd,
>
> Really? lynx/links and wget have always worked for me from the LiveCDs.

yes, but when you think 'i want to connect to this ftp site and grab a few 
things', you think 'ftp client'
wget sucks because you have to type it all out by heart, lynx works ok as a 
replacment ... but really i'd prefer a good ftp client (ncftp is really nice, 
but very quirky and not totally intuitive to first time users)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 560 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:23:31 -0700 Mark Dierolf <mark@3e0.com> wrote:
| What about python?? I hate python!

*Always* required for portage. Unless you go back to the good old days
of ebuild.sh...

| nano?? I fucking hate nano, it frustrates the hell out of me! 

Isn't in system.

| slocate?? I've never used the locate database, my telepathy tells me
| where files are!

Isn't in system on most archs.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 03:23 pm, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> What about python?? I hate python!

rewrite portage

> fbset?? Framebuffers suck!

was stripped out long ago from system

> nano?? I fucking hate nano, it frustrates the hell out of me!

system depends on virtual/editor; the default editor is nano because that is 
by far the easiest to use for new users
in other words, we force *some* editor on you but you are certainly free to 
choose a different one

> modutils?? I haven't used modules since 1998!

actually, it's module-init-tools, but i find this much less of an exception 
than dhcp

> hdparm?? I don't even HAVE a hard disk on my PXEBOOT!

pxeboot -> netboot/embedded ... we have custom profiles to suite these systems 
since the default is not useful

> slocate?? I've never used the locate database, my telepathy tells me where
> files are!

also been removed, but this change happened more recently

> There is a usability/space tradeoff for all of this. IMO, let's remove
> framebuffers, slocate, modutils, and hdparm from system, and THEN there
> might be a good enough argument to seriously justify leaving out dhcpcd.

well, considering most of the packages you're arguing against HAVE been 
punted, i guess that means you're all for punting dhcpcd too
awesome ! :)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mark Dierolf]

This whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Step back and realize that a 
massive portion of gentoo's userbase wants/needs dhcp. It's a big thing.

If you really want to *strip* gentoo, get rid of wget. WTF is wget doing in by 
default??

The reason is, wget is needed by portage. For many users, dhcp is needed as 
well. If I can't connect to the net, I can't emerge dhcpcd to get on the net. 
Circular dependencies suck.

What about python?? I hate python!
fbset?? Framebuffers suck!
nano?? I fucking hate nano, it frustrates the hell out of me! 
modutils?? I haven't used modules since 1998!
hdparm?? I don't even HAVE a hard disk on my PXEBOOT!
slocate?? I've never used the locate database, my telepathy tells me where 
files are!

There is a usability/space tradeoff for all of this. IMO, let's remove 
framebuffers, slocate, modutils, and hdparm from system, and THEN there might 
be a good enough argument to seriously justify leaving out dhcpcd. For now, 
this is a pitifully small thing which is waayyy too valuable to have around.

Is our goal just to be able to boot, or do we want to be able to boot and do 
something?

At the very least, let's make it a USE flag that is on by default. That way, 
all of the "hardcore" users can strip out that whopping 62k that dhcpcd and 
all of it's related documentation take up by putting -dhcp in their 
make.conf. I think it's ridiculous, but i'm an advocate of flexibility.

If we have 1000 use flags, 1000 more can't hurt, right?

Mark Dierolf


On Tuesday 28 September 2004 8:16 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 11:08 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 07:32, Allen Parker wrote:
> > > If you think that removing dhcpcd pisses *you* off... perhaps you can
> > > explain why there aren't any ftp/http clients on the livecds?
> > > *someone* thought it would be a good idea... hence... i've been
> > > "cooking" my own livecds with actual useful stuff on them... ncftp,
> > > elinks, NO dhcpcd,
> >
> > Really? lynx/links and wget have always worked for me from the LiveCDs.
>
> yes, but when you think 'i want to connect to this ftp site and grab a few
> things', you think 'ftp client'
> wget sucks because you have to type it all out by heart, lynx works ok as a
> replacment ... but really i'd prefer a good ftp client (ncftp is really
> nice, but very quirky and not totally intuitive to first time users)
> -mike
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

Travis Tilley wrote:	[Mon Sep 27 2004, 09:56:21PM EDT]
> now about the problem of removing/having dhcpcd... do our init scripts 
> even support using anything else? and if it's not part of the base 
> system... why even support it at all in the base system? 

baselayout-1.11.x supports multiple dhcp clients.  It's been on our
todo list for a long time.  At the moment that version of baselayout
is pmasked for testing.  I'd be thrilled if devs would unmask and try
it, though.

If you have baselayout-1.11.x emerged, look in /etc/conf.d/net.example
for documentation on what should be in /etc/conf.d/net.  It's actually
pretty simple.

> shouldnt the support scripts be part of dhcpcd then?

We thought about that pretty hard.  Putting the support in baselayout
makes it possible to continue refining the module API, and apply fixes
to all the dhcp modules at once.  If we put the modules in the dhcp
client packages, we would need to keep making updates to those
packages, along with cross-referencing depends to get versions right.
It would be a mess... So we decided to keep it simple by putting the
modules in baselayout, at least for now.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Christian Parpart]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 9:19 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 03:23 pm, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> > What about python?? I hate python!
>
> rewrite portage

I'm really thinking of doing a rewrite (first only for research) that also 
takes the GLEP into account, that is, using client/server architecture, so, 
that emerge would just be yet another front-end (the standard one of course).
As I dislike python (sorry), too, I'd of course use a programming language 
that generates native code and supports high level programming features like 
C++ :)

> > nano?? I fucking hate nano, it frustrates the hell out of me!
>
> system depends on virtual/editor; the default editor is nano because that
> is by far the easiest to use for new users
> in other words, we force *some* editor on you but you are certainly free to
> choose a different one

I hate nano that much, that there's only one thing left I hate more than 
nano, however, the first thing I do on installing a system is a slick vim 
to edit the configs. but I must agree, nano may be the easiest for AT 
LEAST windows users that wanna try out linux *and* do not know 
about typical unix/linux editors.

> > modutils?? I haven't used modules since 1998!
>
> actually, it's module-init-tools, but i find this much less of an exception
> than dhcp

modutils/module-init-tools SHALL remain in system since it is fairly 
COMMON on to many systems. I see no reason to talk about removing it.

> > hdparm?? I don't even HAVE a hard disk on my PXEBOOT!
>
> pxeboot -> netboot/embedded ... we have custom profiles to suite these
> systems since the default is not useful
>
> > slocate?? I've never used the locate database, my telepathy tells me
> > where files are!
>
> also been removed, but this change happened more recently

yeah, obviousely all but mine, however, I really really hate slocate even 
more than nano. slocate was right the second thing in 
my /etc/portage/package.mask

FINALLY, I don't see any reason for keeping any dhcp client in system.
Those users who needs it, may of course emerge it. Those who like 
iproute2 have to emerge it themself, too, so, out with it!

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 21:34:33 up 35 days,  9:14,  0 users,  load average: 1.13, 1.44, 1.19

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 03:43 pm, Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 9:19 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > rewrite portage
>
> I'm really thinking of doing a rewrite (first only for research) that also
> takes the GLEP into account, that is, using client/server architecture, so,
> that emerge would just be yet another front-end (the standard one of
> course). As I dislike python (sorry), too, I'd of course use a programming
> language that generates native code and supports high level programming
> features like C++ :)

theres a bunch of attempts out there on the internet so i'm sure you could 
grab a bunch to bootstrap yourself and then incoporate cool features from 
others

> Those who like
> iproute2 have to emerge it themself, too, so, out with it!

mmm i like iproute2 ... but i think we digress :)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Gábor Farkas]

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:43 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> As I dislike python (sorry), too, I'd of course use a programming
> language 
> that generates native code and supports high level programming
> features like 
> C++ :)

why is it important that it generates native code?

gabor


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Travis Tilley wrote:	[Mon Sep 27 2004, 09:56:21PM EDT]
> 
>>now about the problem of removing/having dhcpcd... do our init scripts 
>>even support using anything else? and if it's not part of the base 
>>system... why even support it at all in the base system? 
> 
> 
> baselayout-1.11.x supports multiple dhcp clients.  It's been on our
> todo list for a long time.  At the moment that version of baselayout
> is pmasked for testing.  I'd be thrilled if devs would unmask and try
> it, though.

nice. i didnt know that until vapier/spanky pointed it out to me. good 
stuff, and i'm glad to be proven wrong.

> If you have baselayout-1.11.x emerged, look in /etc/conf.d/net.example
> for documentation on what should be in /etc/conf.d/net.  It's actually
> pretty simple.

would you be averse to adding a virtual/dhcp-client that defaults to 
something reasonable and then making this version of baselayout pdep on 
it if dhcp or some other flag is in USE? i'm a more than willing guinea 
pig. :)


-Travis-

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 10:23 pm, Gábor Farkas wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:43 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > As I dislike python (sorry), too, I'd of course use a programming
> > language
> > that generates native code and supports high level programming
> > features like
> > C++ :)
>
> why is it important that it generates native code?

easy, it's faster. however, this is no must of course.

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 00:15:52 up 35 days, 11:55,  3 users,  load average: 1.25, 0.99, 1.02

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2686 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:23:31PM -0700, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> This whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Step back and realize
> that a massive portion of gentoo's userbase wants/needs dhcp. It's a
> big thing.
The majority of the userbase may have use for BOOTP/DHCP, but that
doesn't mean they should be stuck with a dhcp client.

The kernel IP autoconfig support is all I use on some of my systems.

> If you really want to *strip* gentoo, get rid of wget. WTF is wget
> doing in by default??
Fine, lets make a virtual for a URL fetcher, and just have portage (that
requires some way of fetching files) depend on that.

> The reason is, wget is needed by portage. For many users, dhcp is needed as 
> well. If I can't connect to the net, I can't emerge dhcpcd to get on the net. 
> Circular dependencies suck.
Install dhcpcd from a livecd (after chrooting), mainly when you install
initially. We already tell users to install a syslogger and cron daemon
(but we don't explictly require them, and it is quite possible to have a
system that doesn't have them), why should a dhcp client be any
different?

> There is a usability/space tradeoff for all of this. IMO, let's remove 
> framebuffers, slocate, modutils, and hdparm from system, and THEN there might 
> be a good enough argument to seriously justify leaving out dhcpcd. For now, 
> this is a pitifully small thing which is waayyy too valuable to have around.
There is already nothing to require you having those on your system.

> Is our goal just to be able to boot, or do we want to be able to boot and do 
> something?
If you want to do things, you should install the packages to do those
things, eg:
syslogging - install a logger
cronjobs - install a cron daemon
dhcp - install a dhcp client
etc.

> At the very least, let's make it a USE flag that is on by default. That way, 
> all of the "hardcore" users can strip out that whopping 62k that dhcpcd and 
> all of it's related documentation take up by putting -dhcp in their 
> make.conf. I think it's ridiculous, but i'm an advocate of flexibility.
I'd say having users just install it if they need it is a much more
flexible solution that needing to put a dhcp use flag into place.
That way they also don't lose their dhcp client when they do USE="-*
..."

> If we have 1000 use flags, 1000 more can't hurt, right?
PHP5's 101 use flags at last count is getting out of hand already.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jason Rhinelander]

Since this appears to be going ahead, I'd like to request that the 
comment in /etc/conf.d/net be changed from:

# To use DHCP on eth0, simply uncomment the following line:
ifconfig_eth0=("dhcp")

to:

# To use DHCP on eth0, simply emerge a DHCP client (use dhcpcd if you
# aren't sure which one to choose), and uncomment the following line:
ifconfig_eth0=("dhcp")


-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Donnie Berkholz]

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 17:22, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Generally flames don't have "*your*" in bold every 5th word and aren't
> highly accusatory and designed to lash out at someone.

No, they're orange and flickery.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Doug Goldstein]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Allen Parker wrote:
| On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:41:30 -0700, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
|
|>Luke-Jr posted <200409272020.58709.luke-jr@utopios.org>, excerpted below,
|>on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:20:55 +0000:
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>>On Monday 27 September 2004 7:50 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
|>>
|>>>wtf crack monkey voted to remove dhcpcd from the system profile? i
|>>>dunno about you guys, but i like actually being able to connect to the
|>>>internet. it's as essential as ifconfig.
|>>>
|>>>since i'd like to at least have a usable system of some kind, i've
|>>>re-added dhcpcd to the amd64 2004.3 profile. please do me a favor and
|>>>do NOT remove it again.
|>>
|>>I didn't do it, but dhcpcd sure isn't essential to get an internet
|>>connection. I've heard of various other methods such as setting a static
|>>IP, PPPoE, PPP/dialup, pump (BOOTP/DHCP client), etc... IMO, removing it
|>>was a good idea.
|>
|>No kidding.  I'm on amd64 here, and don't need nor want dhcp-anything.  It
|>doesn't belong in the default profile, any more than NetBIOS over TCP/IP
|>belongs in the MS default profile.  If it's not needed, as it isn't for
|>many folks, it shouldn't be installed, for security reasons.
|
|
| If you think that removing dhcpcd pisses *you* off... perhaps you can
| explain why there aren't any ftp/http clients on the livecds?
| *someone* thought it would be a good idea... hence... i've been
| "cooking" my own livecds with actual useful stuff on them... ncftp,
| elinks, NO dhcpcd, automatic network configs that conform to *MY*
| networks 10.0.x.x vs 192.168.x.x with default nameservers/gateways
| already active... in regards to *your* configurations, travis, just
| wondering, are you building dedicated machines with static public ips?
| (i've done it over ssh... thanks ovh.net!)
|
| Rarely, if ever, do I personally have a machine that *requires* dhcp
| to install/setup/etc... and if i do... "emerge dhcpcd" seems to work
| alright for me, y'know? I'm currently managing about 4 machines (I
| know, not that many) that have dhcpcd installed on them because I
| don't have the time to go fuck with the default profiles and *REMOVE*
| it, despite these particular machines having static PUBLIC ips..
|
| *your* particular dependance on dhcpcd shouldn't be the subject of
| public debate. *your* particular dependance on dhcpcd should be
| handled by you, on *your* personal machine by simply emerging dhcpcd
| along with *your* choice of bootloader, *your* choice of system logger
| and *your* choice of cron daemon.
|
| this is the beauty of gentoo... please, leave *your* personal
| preferences out of *your* decision making process when it effects
| *your* users.
|
| this isn't a flame... only a request for sanity.
|
| --
| gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
|
|
|
Generally flames don't have "*your*" in bold every 5th word and aren't
highly accusatory and designed to lash out at someone.

- --
Doug Goldstein
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x179106D0
Key fingerprint = 7001 5FBF BACE 9E66 3A1C  55E0 161C FF5C 1791 06D0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBWgA4Fhz/XBeRBtARAj2lAJkBbP0S/SeBsGtN1vhrC7rJfTJM9wCeMVb5
u4vNCV56xaY0BoWN/JaUaaU=
=7OSc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Luke-Jr]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 7:23 pm, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> This whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Step back and realize that
> a massive portion of gentoo's userbase wants/needs dhcp. It's a big thing.

A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required to get 
on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set a static IP 
and get connectivity without any problem. This includes every Cable ISP I 
have encountered.

>
> If you really want to *strip* gentoo, get rid of wget. WTF is wget doing in
> by default??

I haven't examined wget in detail, but it seems to only have the minimum of 
what is neccesary for its purpose.

>
> The reason is, wget is needed by portage.

Actually, Portage can use any smaller replacement you might have...

> For many users, dhcp is needed as well. If I can't connect to the net, I
> can't emerge dhcpcd to get on the net. Circular dependencies suck.

Please try setting your IP statically. I think you will find that it works.

>
> What about python?? I hate python!

Using an interpreted language would allow Gentoo to have Portage installed 
within the rsync tree. Then, people wouldn't need to worry about having a new 
enough version of Portage for their tree. Too bad this possible feature is 
completely unused.
I know there was a debate a while back about whether Portage-NG should be 
Python or C or whatever, so there's obviously reasons they chose to use it...

> fbset?? Framebuffers suck!

No comment. Not sure why that would be in system.

> nano?? I fucking hate nano, it frustrates the hell out of me!

So emerge another editor. Nano isn't in system. You can have *any* editor, but 
you must have at least one. Nano just happens to be the default option. From 
what I can tell without much examination, Nano also looks to be the most 
minimalist of the editors available...

> modutils?? I haven't used modules since 1998!

Your loss. I don't like to reboot for everything I change in my kernel.

> hdparm?? I don't even HAVE a hard disk on my PXEBOOT!

Why is a PXEBOOT using a normal profile anyway?

> slocate?? I've never used the locate database, my telepathy tells me where
> files are!

Is that in system? I don't think it is... :?

>
> Is our goal just to be able to boot, or do we want to be able to boot and
> do something?

If you can't do anything without network, you have other issues.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

Travis Tilley wrote:	[Tue Sep 28 2004, 04:55:46PM EDT]
> would you be averse to adding a virtual/dhcp-client that defaults to
> something reasonable and then making this version of baselayout pdep
> on it if dhcp or some other flag is in USE? i'm a more than willing
> guinea pig. :)

I'm not personally averse to this, but I would question pdep.  Isn't
rdep the right one in this case?

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Luke-Jr wrote:
> A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required to get 
> on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set a static IP 
> and get connectivity without any problem. This includes every Cable ISP I 
> have encountered.

apparently my cable ISP hasnt gotten the memo.

> Please try setting your IP statically. I think you will find that it works.

nope.

>>Is our goal just to be able to boot, or do we want to be able to boot and
>>do something?
> 
> 
> If you can't do anything without network, you have other issues.

yeah. network connectivity issues.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Travis Tilley wrote:	[Tue Sep 28 2004, 04:55:46PM EDT]
> 
>>would you be averse to adding a virtual/dhcp-client that defaults to
>>something reasonable and then making this version of baselayout pdep
>>on it if dhcp or some other flag is in USE? i'm a more than willing
>>guinea pig. :)
> 
> 
> I'm not personally averse to this, but I would question pdep.  Isn't
> rdep the right one in this case?
> 
> Regards,
> Aron

...true. well, no matter what change is made, definately poke at me. :)
also, is this version of baselayout something that would be even 
remotely reasonable for the very quickly approaching 2004.3 release 
cycle? pretty much i want to know if i should just remove dhcpcd from 
the amd64 profile right now or wait until after this release.


-Travis-

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Corvus Corax]

> wtf crack monkey ...

hey guys, an oppinion from a gentoo user here:


if you remove stuff like dhcpcd, do it right

I agree that, while some ethernet networks NEED dhcp clients, as some gentoo
users need pppd to get on the net, its an optional feature, we can live with
that being emerged seperately if needed (as is pppd).

However the current init scripts depend not only on a dhcp client, but on dhcpcd
hardcoded and they dont check for its presents, they just assume its there like
if it were ifconfig

it not being there the ebuild would still somehow work and use the fallback
static setting, if given, however this would get confusing to users (especially
if no static setting is set) thinking

"i have set it to use dhcp ion /etc/conf.d/net like the install documentation
says, and my dhcp server runs, but i cant get a lease, what the heck is wrong
here ?!?"

so either make /etc/init.d/net.ethx check for a dhcp client present before
trying to use it and WARN the user if not
(when you are on it, you could also add support to some other dhcp clients and
introduce VIRTUAL/dhcpc)

or make dhcpcd an rdepent in the baselayout ebuild
(it actually IS a runtime dependency right now the way those init scripts are
written)


while actually a bug in baselayout (and hopefully filed on bugzilla meanwhile
after this discussion) I think the idea of silently removing dhcpcd from the
profile, this way triggering that bug almost willingly was a bad practise


not really crack monkey style, but not thought through either.



my 2 ¢

Corvus

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1027 bytes --]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 00:16, Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 10:23 pm, Gábor Farkas wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:43 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > > As I dislike python (sorry), too, I'd of course use a programming
> > > language
> > > that generates native code and supports high level programming
> > > features like
> > > C++ :)
> >
> > why is it important that it generates native code?
>
> easy, it's faster. however, this is no must of course.

For most tasks of portage speed really really doesn't matter. There are 
only a few parts of portage where speed is actually an issue and python 
can interface with c/c++ easilly. The only valid reason for not wanting 
python would be the ability to create a standalone (maybe even static) 
version of portage.

Paul

ps. Compile times are not hindered at all by the use of python instead of 
for example C

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 03:57, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 7:23 pm, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> > This whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Step back and realize
> > that a massive portion of gentoo's userbase wants/needs dhcp. It's a
> > big thing.
>
> A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required
> to get on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set
> a static IP and get connectivity without any problem. This includes
> every Cable ISP I have encountered.

Only if you know which IP address you're supposed to have and which 
nameservers it could be possible (if not blocked which is very easy and 
smart from the ISP side).

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 9:39 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 September 2004 03:57, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 September 2004 7:23 pm, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> > > This whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Step back and realize
> > > that a massive portion of gentoo's userbase wants/needs dhcp. It's a
> > > big thing.
> >
> > A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required
> > to get on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set
> > a static IP and get connectivity without any problem. This includes
> > every Cable ISP I have encountered.
>
> Only if you know which IP address you're supposed to have and which
> nameservers it could be possible (if not blocked which is very easy and
> smart from the ISP side).
>
> Paul
I don't use my ISP's nameservers anyway, since they are ICANN-only. Often, 
I've found I can set my IP to anything valid in the local area's range, not 
just the one I'm "supposed to have" and it works.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 06:44 pm, Jason Rhinelander wrote:
> Since this appears to be going ahead, I'd like to request that the
> comment in /etc/conf.d/net be changed from:

like i said already, the latest masked baselayout already has this kind of 
stuff
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 06:21 pm, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:23:31PM -0700, Mark Dierolf wrote:
> > If you really want to *strip* gentoo, get rid of wget. WTF is wget
> > doing in by default??
>
> Fine, lets make a virtual for a URL fetcher, and just have portage (that
> requires some way of fetching files) depend on that.

that might be a topic for another day (and another thread :P) since i know 
some people who use curl or prozilla or ftp or some other random fetch client 
in place of wget
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 11:42 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Travis Tilley wrote: [Tue Sep 28 2004, 04:55:46PM EDT]
>
> > would you be averse to adding a virtual/dhcp-client that defaults to
> > something reasonable and then making this version of baselayout pdep
> > on it if dhcp or some other flag is in USE? i'm a more than willing
> > guinea pig. :)
>
> I'm not personally averse to this, but I would question pdep.  Isn't
> rdep the right one in this case?

isnt this a moot point anyways ?
putting '-dhcp-client' into USE in make.conf is just about as 'hard' as 
putting '-dhcpcd' in the /etc/portage/profile/ tree
plus it's just one more bit of junk in our USE space
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 01:05 am, Corvus Corax wrote:
> However the current init scripts depend not only on a dhcp client, but on
> dhcpcd hardcoded and they dont check for its presents, they just assume its
> there like if it were ifconfig

read the whole thread and you'll find that this has changed and already in the 
testing stages

> it not being there the ebuild would still somehow work and use the fallback
> static setting, if given, however this would get confusing to users
> (especially if no static setting is set) thinking

there is a nic fallback option where the net scripts will run ifconfig on the 
interface with a pre-determined IP if dhcp fails (for any reason)

> so either make /etc/init.d/net.ethx check for a dhcp client present before
> trying to use it and WARN the user if not
> (when you are on it, you could also add support to some other dhcp clients
> and introduce VIRTUAL/dhcpc)

this i think is easily doable ... please file a bug for us ?

> or make dhcpcd an rdepent in the baselayout ebuild
> (it actually IS a runtime dependency right now the way those init scripts
> are written)

and so IS iproute2, rp-pppoe, pump, udhcpc, etc...
you suggesting we add all of these to RDEPEND ?
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mark Dierolf]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 6:57 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
> A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required to
> get on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set a
> static IP and get connectivity without any problem. This includes every
> Cable ISP I have encountered.

Comcast Cable, one of the biggest ISP's on the west coast.

No option for static ip's. Can't assign static IP to your box that is unused, 
your MAC address is unblocked on their router by your DHCP request being 
responded to.

Mark Dierolf

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Doty]

Same for comcast in midwest(chicago)  I can't even change my network card here.


On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:18:46 -0700, Mark Dierolf <mark@3e0.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 6:57 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never* required to
> > get on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network, users can set a
> > static IP and get connectivity without any problem. This includes every
> > Cable ISP I have encountered.
> 
> Comcast Cable, one of the biggest ISP's on the west coast.
> 
> No option for static ip's. Can't assign static IP to your box that is unused,
> your MAC address is unblocked on their router by your DHCP request being
> responded to.
> 
> Mark Dierolf
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Dejan Nikic]

I have a static DSL ISP, but I know of plenty of people that have
various provides that provide only DHCP.  This might work in an
enviroment that you know what's going on, but if you are connecting to
one of these big networks who knows what goes on and what will happen
if you try to asign an IP.  Also who's to say that the IP you're gona
use is not already used by another user on that network and it will
drop him/her off.  Now we don't want that, or do we? ;)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Christian Birchinger]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 12:34:44PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> Same for comcast in midwest(chicago)  I can't even change my network card here.

You can override the MAC address of your NIC.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Doty]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:40:46 +0200, Christian Birchinger
<joker@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 12:34:44PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> > Same for comcast in midwest(chicago)  I can't even change my network card here.
> 
> You can override the MAC address of your NIC.
Guys- my comment was about comcast.  I know I can change the MAC
address of a card.  I was just agreeing with the person before me
about comcast(and the need for DHCP)

> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing dhcpcd from system???

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Vapier wrote:	[Wed Sep 29 2004, 09:06:12AM EDT]
> isnt this a moot point anyways ?
> putting '-dhcp-client' into USE in make.conf is just about as 'hard' as 
> putting '-dhcpcd' in the /etc/portage/profile/ tree
> plus it's just one more bit of junk in our USE space

Frankly, this makes sense to me.  Here's what I'm thinking at the
moment:

- baselayout-1.11.x already emits an error message when there is no
  DHCP client available and DHCP configuration is requested.  For
  example:

    * For DHCP (dhcpcd) support, emerge net-misc/dhcpcd

- Adding explicit instructions to the install guide to choose a DHCP
  client is less messy than adding a (local!) USE flag and documenting
  it in the install guide.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1002 bytes --]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 21:05, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> I have a static DSL ISP, but I know of plenty of people that have
> various provides that provide only DHCP.  This might work in an
> enviroment that you know what's going on, but if you are connecting to
> one of these big networks who knows what goes on and what will happen
> if you try to asign an IP.  Also who's to say that the IP you're gona
> use is not already used by another user on that network and it will
> drop him/her off.  Now we don't want that, or do we? ;)

Many places that actually assign static IP's still use dhcp. It has a 
number of advantages. One being that administration is centralised. 
Another that one can change for example the name servers in the dhcp 
config to change them on the network. I would advise anyone who 
administers a nontrivial network to use dhcp to provide addresses.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[José Fernandes]

Hey, im not dev or anything, and maybe shouldn't be adding more noise
to this, but, well, i use dhcp at school, work, coffe, home (true, i
could be using static ip here), and well.. all ISP here in Portugal
require dhcp.

Hell, maybe im wrong, but i think there will be a lot of complains
from those more inexperient users (and useless bugs added in bugzilla)
if you remove this from the default thing.

To those who like the thin tweek their systems... well, they could
package.mask all packages they dont use or like, couldnt they?

Thank you and nice hack ;)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:01:12 +0200, Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 29 September 2004 21:05, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> > I have a static DSL ISP, but I know of plenty of people that have
> > various provides that provide only DHCP.  This might work in an
> > enviroment that you know what's going on, but if you are connecting to
> > one of these big networks who knows what goes on and what will happen
> > if you try to asign an IP.  Also who's to say that the IP you're gona
> > use is not already used by another user on that network and it will
> > drop him/her off.  Now we don't want that, or do we? ;)
> 
> Many places that actually assign static IP's still use dhcp. It has a
> number of advantages. One being that administration is centralised.
> Another that one can change for example the name servers in the dhcp
> config to change them on the network. I would advise anyone who
> administers a nontrivial network to use dhcp to provide addresses.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> --
> Paul de Vrieze
> Gentoo Developer
> Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
> Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
> 
> 
> 
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

I've read some childish answers in this 'thread'... locking... LOL

Now seriously, if we, at least, current european tendences, we'll see
that over 80% of ISPs require the use of a dhcp client. The fact that
someone does not need dhcp does not mean at all that it should be
removed by default. If we had to think that way, then probably bash
(for example) should be removed too, as I can perfectly work with sh.
Or we could remove nano, as with a simple echo/sed/less we can handle
with archieves, right?

IMHO it's stupid (no offense to anyone) to remove it.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:21:49 +0100, José Fernandes <josemataf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, im not dev or anything, and maybe shouldn't be adding more noise
> to this, but, well, i use dhcp at school, work, coffe, home (true, i
> could be using static ip here), and well.. all ISP here in Portugal
> require dhcp.
> 
> Hell, maybe im wrong, but i think there will be a lot of complains
> from those more inexperient users (and useless bugs added in bugzilla)
> if you remove this from the default thing.
> 
> To those who like the thin tweek their systems... well, they could
> package.mask all packages they dont use or like, couldnt they?
> 
> Thank you and nice hack ;)
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:01:12 +0200, Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 29 September 2004 21:05, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> > > I have a static DSL ISP, but I know of plenty of people that have
> > > various provides that provide only DHCP.  This might work in an
> > > enviroment that you know what's going on, but if you are connecting to
> > > one of these big networks who knows what goes on and what will happen
> > > if you try to asign an IP.  Also who's to say that the IP you're gona
> > > use is not already used by another user on that network and it will
> > > drop him/her off.  Now we don't want that, or do we? ;)
> >
> > Many places that actually assign static IP's still use dhcp. It has a
> > number of advantages. One being that administration is centralised.
> > Another that one can change for example the name servers in the dhcp
> > config to change them on the network. I would advise anyone who
> > administers a nontrivial network to use dhcp to provide addresses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Paul de Vrieze
> > Gentoo Developer
> > Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
> > Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 



-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<deathwing00[at]forums.gentoo.org> 0xC2539DA3
<aioannis[at]tinet.org> 0xF202D067
<dwcommander[at]users.sourceforge.net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)
Gentoo Forums Global  Moderator (http://forums.gentoo.org)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

I did read the entire thread, and I do want it in the system profile.
Please, post into the mailing list, not directly to me.


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:15:25 -0400, Athul Acharya <aacharya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ioannis Aslanidis <aslanidis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've read some childish answers in this 'thread'... locking... LOL
> >  The fact that
> > someone does not need dhcp does not mean at all that it should be
> > removed by default.
> [....]
> > IMHO it's stupid (no offense to anyone) to remove it.
> 
> Please read the rest of the thread. It's not being removed from
> portage, its just being removed from the system profile. This means
> its no longer considered vital to any system, and someone who doesn't
> need it can never merge it. This is the way things should be. Now shut
> yer yapper.
> 
> Athul
> 



-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<deathwing00[at]forums.gentoo.org> 0xC2539DA3
<aioannis[at]tinet.org> 0xF202D067
<dwcommander[at]users.sourceforge.net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)
Gentoo Forums Global  Moderator (http://forums.gentoo.org)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Athul Acharya]

Ioannis Aslanidis <aslanidis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please, post into the mailing list, not directly to me.

Sorry, gmail's handling of mailing lists screwed me on that.

> I do want it in the system profile.

Why? As Mike Frysinger stated above, the new baselayout doesn't have a
dependency on any kind of dhcp client, let alone dhcpcd specifically. 
If you need dhcpcd, you can emerge it.  If not, you're no longer
forced to have it.  I have a lot of things emerged that are necessary
for my system to run, but not for everyone's. These things are not in
the system profile. dhcpcd is the kind of thing that falls into this
category. Thus, dhcpcd should not be in the system profile.

Athul

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Tom Payne]

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I get the impression that the
there's a misunderstanding here which seems to be the causing the
disagreement.

The system profile is /not/ the same as what's on the installation CD.

The system profile is the "minimum" Gentoo system -- just the bare bones
(init scripts, glibc, gcc, portage, that sort of thing).

The installation CD includes the system profile and lots of useful other
things, like a web browser (links).

This means that if dhcpc is not in the system profile:
1) it'll still be on the installation CD so you can install over your
broadband connection, and
2) if you need it then you'll have to emerge manually (much like you already
have to emerge a system logger and a crond if you want them).

You do not need dhcp to run a minimum Gentoo system so it can be safely
removed from the system profile.

-- 
Tom

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

What happens is that if I install Gentoo ina laboratory of machines, I
don't want to have to do extra configuration... that's all: I'm lazy
;)


On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:57:20 +0200, Tom Payne <twp@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I get the impression that the
> there's a misunderstanding here which seems to be the causing the
> disagreement.
> 
> The system profile is /not/ the same as what's on the installation CD.
> 
> The system profile is the "minimum" Gentoo system -- just the bare bones
> (init scripts, glibc, gcc, portage, that sort of thing).
> 
> The installation CD includes the system profile and lots of useful other
> things, like a web browser (links).
> 
> This means that if dhcpc is not in the system profile:
> 1) it'll still be on the installation CD so you can install over your
> broadband connection, and
> 2) if you need it then you'll have to emerge manually (much like you already
> have to emerge a system logger and a crond if you want them).
> 
> You do not need dhcp to run a minimum Gentoo system so it can be safely
> removed from the system profile.
> 
> --
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 



-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<deathwing00[at]forums.gentoo.org> 0xC2539DA3
<aioannis[at]tinet.org> 0xF202D067
<dwcommander[at]users.sourceforge.net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)
Gentoo Forums Global  Moderator (http://forums.gentoo.org)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:06:38AM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> What happens is that if I install Gentoo ina laboratory of machines, I
> don't want to have to do extra configuration... that's all: I'm lazy
> ;)
Then develop things properly:
1. customized rsync tree contain a custom profile (very easy with
cascading profiles now).
2. partimage (on your own custom livecd) to deploy an initial system
image.
3. Update each machine as you see suitable.

#3 is the only place Portage falls a little bit short presently,
requiring you to run emerge on each machine - you can use binary
packages to speed things up - but you still have to utilize each
machine. There are a few requests in bugzilla about this, for something
like the high-end RHN setup, where you can select all of your machines
on a webpage, and install a package on them directly. It's mainly
waiting on some features in Portage to be developed (an api/interface to
'emerge') before the rest of it is possible.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jason Rhinelander]

There is one important difference between dhcpcd being in system and a 
syslogger being in system - if I don't have syslog-xyz, I can emerge it 
after I reboot my system; if I don't have dhcpcd I may well not be able 
to emerge it due to the lack of networking capability.

If the stance that 'system' is only the things *absolutely* required for 
*every* Gentoo installations, the following, at least, also need to be 
removed (this is from profiles/base/packages):

app-arch/cpio # Why is this required? Portage?
sys-apps/ed # I don't want it
sys-apps/file # I use this, but some people might not
sys-apps/findutils # Perhaps I prefer to use find2perl instead
sys-apps/kbd # I don't want or need this
sys-apps/man-pages # I may not want man pages
sys-apps/setserial # I haven't used a serial port in years
sys-apps/which # Nice, but is it necessary?
sys-devel/bc # Again, nice, but not necessary
sys-fs/e2fsprogs # I don't use ext2/3
virtual/ssh # It's possible that not every Gentoo user needs ssh

Before you ask, I'm *not* serious about removing the above.  The point 
is, most of the above is required for most reasonable linux 
installation.  Likewise, a DHCP client is required for a very large 
group of Gentoo users, since updating Gentoo requires internet access. 
Yes, there are exceptions - such as the guy in this thread who showed us 
how stupid we all are to actually use DHCP clients on DHCP networks 
instead of grabbing random IP's until we find one that works - but if it 
is really such a concern, wouldn't it be sufficient to add a 'dhcp' USE 
flag to baselayout?  If set, it could simply add virtual/dhcp-client to 
RDEPEND.  That way, those few who really don't want a DHCP client can 
USE=-dhcp and be done with it, and the rest of us don't have to worry 
about it.

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.

Tom Payne wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I get the impression that the
> there's a misunderstanding here which seems to be the causing the
> disagreement.
> 
> The system profile is /not/ the same as what's on the installation CD.
> 
> The system profile is the "minimum" Gentoo system -- just the bare bones
> (init scripts, glibc, gcc, portage, that sort of thing).
> 
> The installation CD includes the system profile and lots of useful other
> things, like a web browser (links).
> 
> This means that if dhcpc is not in the system profile:
> 1) it'll still be on the installation CD so you can install over your
> broadband connection, and
> 2) if you need it then you'll have to emerge manually (much like you already
> have to emerge a system logger and a crond if you want them).
> 
> You do not need dhcp to run a minimum Gentoo system so it can be safely
> removed from the system profile.
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:51:20 -0700 Jason Rhinelander
<jason@gossamer-threads.com> wrote:
| sys-devel/bc # Again, nice, but not necessary

Necessary. Needed to compile various fairly important things.

| it is really such a concern, wouldn't it be sufficient to add a 'dhcp'
| USE flag to baselayout?  If set, it could simply add
| virtual/dhcp-client to RDEPEND.

Yuck. I'm not a fan of USE flags which just pull in deps if they don't
alter what's actually installed. Now, if the dhcp code in baselayout was
optional (which it isn't and shouldn't be), a USE flag would make sense,
but for just pulling in another package? Bleh...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jason Rhinelander]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:51:20 -0700 Jason Rhinelander
> | it is really such a concern, wouldn't it be sufficient to add a 'dhcp'
> | USE flag to baselayout?  If set, it could simply add
> | virtual/dhcp-client to RDEPEND.
> 
> Yuck. I'm not a fan of USE flags which just pull in deps if they don't
> alter what's actually installed. Now, if the dhcp code in baselayout was
> optional (which it isn't and shouldn't be), a USE flag would make sense,
> but for just pulling in another package? Bleh...
> 

Oh, I agree, but do you see a better solution?

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Athul Acharya]

Jason Rhinelander <jason@gossamer-threads.com> wrote:
> If I don't have dhcpcd I may well not be able
> to emerge it due to the lack of networking capability.

Allow me to quote Tom Payne at you:
> The system profile is /not/ the same as what's on the installation CD.
[...]
> ... [dhcpcd]'ll still be on the installation CD so you can install over your
broadband connection.

So you __will__ be able to emerge it when installing.  (!!)

Now, if you do need dhcp, and you forget to emerge it while installing
before you reboot, and you find yourself on a box without a network
connection, I believe the technical term for that is "screwing up" ! 
And in such an instance, the thing to do is reboot to the liveCD, use
dhcpcd to get an ip, set the chroot back up, and emerge dhcpcd.  And,
mind you, this is only if you screwed up, otherwise you just emerged
dhcpcd/dhclient/etc along with syslog and cron and you're all set.

Now perhaps it may be prudent to suggest that a line about emerging
dhcpcd go in the installation guides alongside the section about
installing syslog etc. But there remains no reason for it to be in the
system profile.

Athul

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 30 September 2004 07:51 pm, Jason Rhinelander wrote:
> sys-apps/ed # I don't want it

it's used for scripting in packages

> sys-apps/findutils # Perhaps I prefer to use find2perl instead

many system/portage things use find

> sys-apps/kbd # I don't want or need this

umm i hope you're a en/US user cause otherwise you're going to have change 
your keyboard mapping (but in your world, you'd be screwed)

> sys-apps/which # Nice, but is it necessary?
> sys-devel/bc # Again, nice, but not necessary

same thing as ed/findutils ... baselayout/portage/scripting

> sys-fs/e2fsprogs # I don't use ext2/3

it provides fsck/mkfs, not *JUST* ext2 utils; also sash needs it and sash is 
in our system by policy (our static recovery shell)

i realize you're not serious, but many of those packages are critical and 
people may not realize it :)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-09-30 20:12:07 -0400 Athul Acharya <aacharya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now perhaps it may be prudent to suggest that a line about emerging
> dhcpcd go in the installation guides alongside the section about
> installing syslog etc. But there remains no reason for it to be in the
> system profile.

Yes, this would be quite prudent.

However, let me offer another way of looking at this.  Gentoo is a 
OS/"metadistribution" of Linux, as well as the name that encompasses 
its tools (portage; Gentoo on MacOSX, etc etc).  On systems where, for 
most intents and purposes, Gentoo is the OS (i.e. running on top of 
Linux, Hurd, whatever), Gentoo should make all attempts to be a usable 
OS _by default_.

When a users goes through the handbook, and install, Gentoo, maybe a 
note about DHCP support should be in there, but more to the point, 
maybe an entire page or section should be placed before the USE flags 
page, that describes the extent a user could conceivably alter the 
default layout.

Now, the default layout cannot, imho, be solely "additive" in 
features.  If this where the case, we need to remove /bin/login (in 
pam-login), and all /sbin/agetty (in util-linux), as I may be building 
for a completly headless server, or something like that.

It's reasonable to say "Well, a user can simply emerge dhcpcd", but it 
is as reasonable to say "a user can simply remove dhcpd from _their_ 
profile".

If a normal Gentoo/Linux install is going to be usable it _has_ to 
contain "normal" OS tools.  DHCP, even if you do not use it, is one of 
these tools.  Many, many people use this.  Same with /sbin/ifconfig 
itself (in net-tools) -- a user may not have a network connection _at 
all_.

This phenomenon is especially evident in make.defaults, in any 
profile.  Any one of us could name tens of use flags he or she turns 
off in their own default profile, I'm sure.  The point is: 
they're_defaults_.  They work for a great number of what people want, 
so they're in there.  If you are not one of those people, then follow 
this methodology:

if(feature_i_want->isDefault())
	echo "yay";
else
	feature_i_want->addToSystem();

if(feature_i_dislike->isDefault())
	echo "boooooo"
	feature_i_dislike->removeFromSystem();
else
	echo "yay";

The "system" here should be the supported default layout, any arch, 
any anything, that reasonably supports the greatest numbers of users / 
causes us the least headaches down the road when people complain about 
missing features.  The person who has to remove dhcpcd from their 
default layout is less likely to have something important to complain 
about than the person who cannot emerge dhcpcd because they have no 
dhcp client to connect to a network with!

If Gentoo was a plant, it's simply one you should prune _and_ feed.  
This should not be a concept that is difficult to understand.

__Armando
P.S.  **sheesh**


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 20:07, Travis Tilley wrote:
> so yeah... the only reason why the next livecds will work with dhcp is 
> because the livecd team ACCIDENTALLY found out about this change.

Yet another testament to our need for improved communication.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Travis Tilley]

Tom Payne wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I get the impression that the
> there's a misunderstanding here which seems to be the causing the
> disagreement.
> 
> The system profile is /not/ the same as what's on the installation CD.

I dont think the livecd team was even -aware- of this change, and so 
dhcpcd has only recently been added to the livecd specs. if you were to 
use the same specs used to build the 2004.2 livecds now, they would 
-not- have dhcpcd and would -not- be able to connect to the net that way.

<Lv> let me ask you... did you guys even KNOW about the dhcpcd change 
right when it happened?
<zhen> not really
<zhen> we kinda stumbled onto it

so yeah... the only reason why the next livecds will work with dhcp is 
because the livecd team ACCIDENTALLY found out about this change.


Travis Tilley
Gentoo/AMD64

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 433 bytes --]

On Friday 01 October 2004 3:07 am, Travis Tilley wrote:
> so yeah... the only reason why the next livecds will work with dhcp is
> because the livecd team ACCIDENTALLY found out about this change.
Sounds like when I stumbled upon finding that bootstrap.sh was old and 
broken... Docs team was never notified, not sure if they've even got the 
handbook updated for it yet.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Colin Kingsley]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:16:42 +0000, Luke-Jr <luke-jr@utopios.org> wrote:
> On Friday 01 October 2004 3:07 am, Travis Tilley wrote:
> > so yeah... the only reason why the next livecds will work with dhcp is
> > because the livecd team ACCIDENTALLY found out about this change.
> Sounds like when I stumbled upon finding that bootstrap.sh was old and
> broken... Docs team was never notified, not sure if they've even got the
> handbook updated for it yet.

Yea.... speaking of bootstrap.sh, why is it broken and whats
bootstrap2.6.sh and those other bootstrap scripts I've seen?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 01 October 2004 07:34 am, Colin Kingsley wrote:
> Yea.... speaking of bootstrap.sh, why is it broken and whats
> bootstrap2.6.sh and those other bootstrap scripts I've seen?

everything will be fixed once i get the thumbs up from zhen ... we need to 
keep the portage tree & catalyst in sync
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 08:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 01 October 2004 07:34 am, Colin Kingsley wrote:
> > Yea.... speaking of bootstrap.sh, why is it broken and whats
> > bootstrap2.6.sh and those other bootstrap scripts I've seen?
> 
> everything will be fixed once i get the thumbs up from zhen ... we need to 
> keep the portage tree & catalyst in sync
> -mike
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

What Mike means is he is waiting on me to commit a stable version of
Catalyst that works with this script. The CVS version of Catalyst
currently works, but there are some other fixes that I am trying to get
in before making a 1.1.0 release, such as livecd udev support.

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Release Engineering
Gentoo Linux Developer/ Manager/ Trustee

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Terje Kvernes]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> For most tasks of portage speed really really doesn't matter. There
> are only a few parts of portage where speed is actually an issue and
> python can interface with c/c++ easilly. The only valid reason for
> not wanting python would be the ability to create a standalone
> (maybe even static) version of portage.

  ack.  besides, no programming language out there will help Portage
  by anything but design.  I/O is the bottleneck, and heck, I've seen
  faster I/O in perl than in C.
 
  [ ... ]

-- 
Terje

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Terje Kvernes]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Wednesday 29 September 2004 03:57, Luke-Jr wrote:
>
> > A massive portion might *need* PPPoE. DHCP is *almost never*
> > required to get on a network. In almost every DHCP-based network,
> > users can set a static IP and get connectivity without any
> > problem. This includes every Cable ISP I have encountered.
> 
> Only if you know which IP address you're supposed to have and which
> nameservers it could be possible (if not blocked which is very easy
> and smart from the ISP side).

  come on, you do remember the IP range you have access to and know
  how to scan the net for a free one?  DHCP is such a luxury.  kids
  these days.  when _I_ was...

-- 
Terje

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Jeff Smelser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

On Monday 04 October 2004 04:38 am, Terje Kvernes wrote:
>   ack.  besides, no programming language out there will help Portage
>   by anything but design.  I/O is the bottleneck, and heck, I've seen
>   faster I/O in perl than in C.

If thats the case, it usually means bad code.. 

Jeff

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing dhcpcd from system???

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:52:37 -0500 Jeff Smelser <tradergt@smelser.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 04 October 2004 04:38 am, Terje Kvernes wrote:
| >   ack.  besides, no programming language out there will help Portage
| >   by anything but design.  I/O is the bottleneck, and heck, I've
| >   seen faster I/O in perl than in C.
| 
| If thats the case, it usually means bad code.. 

Naah, it just means 'normal' code. Perl's generally pretty good in its
choice of algorithms and how it buffers and resizes data. glibc, on the
other hand, gives you a bunch of generally poor algorithms and doesn't
do any clever magic behind the scenes, so you've got to work really hard
to get good code in c. Of course, if you *do* go to the trouble of
reinventing the wheel over and over, you get faster code in c
eventually. Simple case in point, compare strstr(3) to perl's string
matching code...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]