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 |