[gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: provide net

[Duncan]

Dave Crane posted <200512301639.39194.d@×××××.net>, excerpted below,  on
Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:39:38 -0500:

> On Thursday 29 December 2005 19:10, Duncan wrote:
>
>> How do you figure?  One size doesn't fit all, but you are asking that
>> your size fits all?
>
> No, whomever made apache2 "need net" instead of "use net" made the
> decision for me (negating the admin).  Now, I cannot use apache2 locally
> with my laptop without changing rc.conf.

Actually not.  You obviously know it's "need net" where you'd consider it
better as "use net", so to me, the change looks pretty obvious -- a
one-word change to the apache2 rc-script and you have exactly what you
want, and you already know where to make it. =8^)

Other than that, the only thing you might have to worry about is ensuring
/etc/init.d isn't in your make.conf CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK (assuming /etc is
in CONFIG_PROTECT as it normally is).

> Just for comparison NFS would be pretty useless without a non-lo network
> and yet amazingly it's listed as "use net", not "need net" (portmap
> too).

Hmm... good point!  The next logical question would be "Have you checked
to see if a bug has been filed and filed one if not?"  After making the
local mod to my rc-script, knowing of the others, that would be my next
step, making the point you just made.  Perhaps you'll get them to change
their minds.  If not, at least you should get some insight into their
thinking as to why it should be "need" instead of "use".

> I know the variable well.  Obviously Mr. Milesi did not, and in this
> particular case it seems an assumption, apache is only useful across a
> non-local connection, has bit him.
>
> I like Gentoo and have used it for years, because it usually doesn't
> make assumptions for me.  Also, discussions like this rarely devolve
> into pissing matches like I was used to with other distros previously.

Ouch!  What was that twinge I just felt? <g>

> On another note, I use softlevels/custom inits extensively to work
> around problems like this one.  I can't imagine I'm the only one. I've
> also extended the softlevels to conf.d, so I have a conf.d-laptopoffline
> directory to correspond to the softlevel laptopoffline for alternate
> configs.  I'm not sure if this is supported otherwise.  I use this for
> laptops and cold spare servers (change their config completely at boot
> or with init).

Perhaps it's because I learned the traditional initlevel system first, but
initlevels seem to work just fine for my uses, here.  I have the usual
0/shutdown, 1/single, 2/nonet (my defaultlevel), 3/net (4,5 are by default
identical to 3 on Gentoo and in fact many modern distros, so it's
relatively easy to set them up as new levels with just an item or  two
changed from the default), and 6/reboot. However, I liked the old Gentoo
initlevel 1 with the normal VTs active, so I created an initlevel 9 to
continue that when Gentoo changed initlevel 1 to only a single VT in
keeping with most of the other distributions. (I'm not sure if the single
VT in initlevel 1 is in stable baselayout yet or not, but it has been in
~amd64 for some time, now.)

I've not seen a need to use Gentoo's softlevel stuff at all, nor have I
needed RC_USE_CONFIG_PROFILE set yes, here.  I just boot initlevel 2/nonet
by default, then initialize 3/network when I'm ready to do so.  That's
less complex for me than worrying about softlevels.

-- 
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 in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list