| 1 |
Ian Stakenvicius posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:45 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 26/10/11 02:50 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 7 |
>> All, |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> openrc has two network stacks currently. The first is the one most |
| 10 |
>> people are using afaik, the net.* scripts, which I will call oldnet in |
| 11 |
>> the rest of this message. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> The second is the network and staticroute scripts, which we do not use |
| 14 |
>> or support in gentoo, primarily because it does not allow the |
| 15 |
>> flexability of the oldnet scripts. I will call these scripts newnet. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> If there are no objections, I want to remove the newnet scripts before |
| 18 |
>> the next release. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> It's been a while since I hung out in #gentoo, but one of the last times |
| 21 |
> I was there (say, July?), there were people supporting the use of the |
| 22 |
> newnet method (and i *think* were actually trying to get people to |
| 23 |
> switch). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Personally, I prefer oldnet and would support the removal of newnet. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
++ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
As with Ian I'd personally just as soon kill newnet, but... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
AFAIK, this came up once before, during the stabilization discussion, and |
| 32 |
each method had some users. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
AFAIK newnet has never been officially supported in stable, and even in |
| 35 |
~arch, it has been only the most forward leaning users that will have |
| 36 |
switched, so IMO a news item isn't required as I'd otherwise suggest. |
| 37 |
But a warning would still be useful, just in case, and I'd suggest a |
| 38 |
deprecation/removal warning similar to that for tree-cleaning, 30 days |
| 39 |
minimum, 60 days preferred. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I'm not sure what you mean by "release", 0.9.4, or 0.10.0, and the |
| 42 |
planned release schedule. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
If you intended killing it by 0.9.4, I'd suggest warning with that (and |
| 45 |
do a stable 0.8.X-rY bump with the warning too, just in case, if 0.9 |
| 46 |
isn't in-process for stabilization already), with removal to be first |
| 47 |
release next year (2012). If you do that within a week or so (both |
| 48 |
upstream and gentoo), that will leave a full 60 days of warning. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
If you were thinking about doing a 0.10 right away and keeping that |
| 51 |
around for awhile, that could be more troublesome or less, depending on |
| 52 |
perspective. I still think I'd try for a 0.9.4 (and 0.8.x-ry) right away |
| 53 |
with the warning, delaying 0.10 a bit if necessary, and give it at least |
| 54 |
that 30 days. With a full 0.x bump, users should be prepared for a few |
| 55 |
more major changes, and a 30-day warning can be argued to be sufficient. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
If you per chance were planning a 1.0, I'd say do it, without newnet, but |
| 58 |
keep it masked for 30-60 days, during which the warnings can be running. |
| 59 |
In that case, if appropriate, the warning can suggest unmasking 1.0 when |
| 60 |
ready to upgrade, if they're still on oldnet or ready to revert back, |
| 61 |
again, mentioning that it'll be unmasked on <date>, perhaps January 1, |
| 62 |
2012. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
That assumes that while newnet's not "supported", there's no existing |
| 65 |
warnings about using it. If there are, and they've been there since |
| 66 |
stabilization, then yeah, kill it, no further warning needed. (But, I'd |
| 67 |
have thought you'd have mentioned it if that were the case, thus |
| 68 |
assumption that it's not.) |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 72 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 73 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives