| 1 |
Am 04.12.2013 23:31, schrieb William Hubbs: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in |
| 6 |
>>>> random package(s) a la binary-distribution style |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in |
| 9 |
>>> stage 3? |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> That's debatable. For a typical install, the user has to install other |
| 13 |
>> basic stuff like a boot loader, kernel, etc. So having them also |
| 14 |
>> select a network config framework seems logical. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Is there a use case for a stage3 in which installing netifrc by hand |
| 17 |
>> is impractical? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Personally, I don't know of one. Does anyone else? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
if you're on x86/amd64 and want to prepare a sdcard for e.g. arm. you |
| 22 |
extract the stage3 to the card but then you can't just chroot and emerge |
| 23 |
netifrc... |
| 24 |
on the other hand, as long as busybox' default config includes a dhcp |
| 25 |
client one can always call it manually, unfortunately to do so. you need |
| 26 |
to have access to the system which isn't always guaranteed without network. |
| 27 |
so I strongly vote against exclude a default network stack for stage3. |
| 28 |
why not introduce a stage3 set which includes @system and other |
| 29 |
important packages like the default network stack? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
/martin |
Archives