From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RJGLu-0001r0-Fm for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDD8021C034; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7F421C020 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601A81B401C for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.773 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.931, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NALsMR2QchBP for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA191B401A for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJGL0-0002HQ-J5 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:09:02 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:09:02 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:09:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: removing newnet from openrc Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20111026185009.GB28040@linux1> <4EA857B1.4000705@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 045ef68 /st/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2c581d85ff387c150513c1d7c879d80e Ian Stakenvicius posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:45 -0400 as excerpted: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 >=20 > On 26/10/11 02:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >>=20 >> openrc has two network stacks currently. The first is the one most >> people are using afaik, the net.* scripts, which I will call oldnet in >> the rest of this message. >>=20 >> The second is the network and staticroute scripts, which we do not use >> or support in gentoo, primarily because it does not allow the >> flexability of the oldnet scripts. I will call these scripts newnet. >>=20 >> If there are no objections, I want to remove the newnet scripts before >> the next release. > It's been a while since I hung out in #gentoo, but one of the last time= s > I was there (say, July?), there were people supporting the use of the > newnet method (and i *think* were actually trying to get people to > switch). >=20 > Personally, I prefer oldnet and would support the removal of newnet. ++ As with Ian I'd personally just as soon kill newnet, but... AFAIK, this came up once before, during the stabilization discussion, and= =20 each method had some users. AFAIK newnet has never been officially supported in stable, and even in=20 ~arch, it has been only the most forward leaning users that will have=20 switched, so IMO a news item isn't required as I'd otherwise suggest. =20 But a warning would still be useful, just in case, and I'd suggest a=20 deprecation/removal warning similar to that for tree-cleaning, 30 days=20 minimum, 60 days preferred. I'm not sure what you mean by "release", 0.9.4, or 0.10.0, and the=20 planned release schedule. If you intended killing it by 0.9.4, I'd suggest warning with that (and=20 do a stable 0.8.X-rY bump with the warning too, just in case, if 0.9=20 isn't in-process for stabilization already), with removal to be first=20 release next year (2012). If you do that within a week or so (both=20 upstream and gentoo), that will leave a full 60 days of warning. If you were thinking about doing a 0.10 right away and keeping that=20 around for awhile, that could be more troublesome or less, depending on=20 perspective. I still think I'd try for a 0.9.4 (and 0.8.x-ry) right away= =20 with the warning, delaying 0.10 a bit if necessary, and give it at least=20 that 30 days. With a full 0.x bump, users should be prepared for a few=20 more major changes, and a 30-day warning can be argued to be sufficient. If you per chance were planning a 1.0, I'd say do it, without newnet, but= =20 keep it masked for 30-60 days, during which the warnings can be running. = =20 In that case, if appropriate, the warning can suggest unmasking 1.0 when=20 ready to upgrade, if they're still on oldnet or ready to revert back,=20 again, mentioning that it'll be unmasked on , perhaps January 1,=20 2012. That assumes that while newnet's not "supported", there's no existing=20 warnings about using it. If there are, and they've been there since=20 stabilization, then yeah, kill it, no further warning needed. (But, I'd=20 have thought you'd have mentioned it if that were the case, thus=20 assumption that it's not.) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman