| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. |
| 4 |
> > The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet |
| 5 |
> > option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is |
| 8 |
> > the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered |
| 9 |
> > in our documentation. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the default? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > What about newnet. ??Should we keep it at all? ??If we do, should we put |
| 14 |
> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't |
| 18 |
> any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an |
| 19 |
> optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people |
| 20 |
> can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If I go this route, I'll probably just get rid of newnet in the next |
| 23 |
release entirely. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
newnet is a single script, "network", which sets up all of the static |
| 26 |
routes and static interfaces. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It is small and simple, but the disadvantage of it is that you can't |
| 29 |
stop/start a single interface. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives