1 |
Josh Saddler wrote: |
2 |
> Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or |
3 |
> ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a "stable" configuration (i.e. as |
4 |
> "final" as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side |
5 |
> updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users. |
6 |
|
7 |
Just to clarify - net.lo and friends, along with bash specific configs |
8 |
are NOT going away. They're just not actively being developed with new |
9 |
features, nor will they get priority for any fixes. However, net.lo nor |
10 |
the modules are installed by default (MKOLDNET=yes is required). |
11 |
|
12 |
So existing documentation works just fine. |
13 |
|
14 |
Also, writing documentation to support things like ADSL and PPP now |
15 |
entirely depends on upstream working with new stuff. For example, |
16 |
wpa_supplicant does not react by itself to hotplugged interfaces and the |
17 |
new OpenRC network script no longer supports per interface |
18 |
start/stops. This is a problem, and I've spent some time working on |
19 |
patches to wpa_supplicant for this, but upstream is not sure about the |
20 |
whole idea. |
21 |
|
22 |
> If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in |
23 |
> new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power |
24 |
> to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our |
25 |
> users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features, |
26 |
> sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble |
27 |
> trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not |
28 |
> add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that. |
29 |
|
30 |
Development on OpenRC has slowed down a lot of late, mainly as most of |
31 |
my goals of where it should go have now been met. And with moving |
32 |
networking to a very simple script, future changes will only be on a per |
33 |
init script basis. As OpenRC just supplies enough init scripts to boot a |
34 |
basic system any future changes will be in the init scripts themselves |
35 |
and thus removed from OpenRC specific documentation. |
36 |
|
37 |
Of course that doesn't stop various upstreams that Gentoo uses from |
38 |
totally changing their user interface. |
39 |
|
40 |
> Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We |
41 |
> already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying |
42 |
> out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation. |
43 |
> We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new |
44 |
> openrc/baselayout release. |
45 |
|
46 |
You could always try writing the code instead ;) |
47 |
|
48 |
Thanks |
49 |
|
50 |
Roy |