Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:41:41
Message-Id: 20131211175100.GA23382@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up by Steev Klimaszewski
1 On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
2 > On Tue, 2013-12-10, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
4 > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09, Rich Freeman wrote:
5 > > > You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
6 > >
7 > > Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are
8 > > issues with ARM, hence my previous suggestion that it might make sense
9 > > to vary this by profile.
10 > >
11 >
12 > Definitely - but then we have to do everything in the profiles, and at
13 > least for ARM, there are currently 6 profiles, and we're considering
14 > introducing a 7th (neon), and we will need to add aarch64, which will be
15 > at least 2 more. I suppose we could do it in the base arm profile...
16
17 I don't think it would make sense to remove networking from any profile.
18 Far better to develop a 14 profile using dhcpcd and make that work, without
19 affecting current users. The virtual could be used to add any higher layer
20 desired, but would not be required.
21
22 > > If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think
23 > > there would be more of a case for removing it.
24 > >
25 > > After all, we stick openrc and portage (the PM) in the stage3 and you
26 > > don't exactly need those in order to run Gentoo...
27
28 Yup. Which is steev's "functional" point, so you seem to be in agreement.
29
30 > While you don't need those specifically to run Gentoo, the point of the
31 > stage3 is to have a workable base to start with. So people are very
32 > much free to yank out openrc and put in, say, systemd, and rip out
33 > portage and add in paludis, if they so choose, and make those available.
34 > And from the traffic I've seen on the systemd list, it looks like they
35 > are adding some sort of networking to systemd itself as well, so we
36 > probably will need a virtual at some point. My specific point of the
37 > email though, was you saying that a stage3 in general aren't functional
38 > - but they are - they are the very base of a functional system, and you
39 > simply add things on top, or replace things with your preferred methods.
40 > A stage1 or a stage2 isn't particularly functional.
41
42 Agreed. There's no real point in a stage3 that doesn't support some sort
43 of networking. It's fine to change over, but again that should be done
44 with a new profile, not by randomly removing netifrc USE default. The
45 latter may not be "correct" on a purist level, but it's a darn sight
46 better than breaking installs, and is only a transitional measure.
47
48 The transition is much easier to handle as a profile change, for an
49 end-user, and the experimental profile facilitates modification of base
50 stages and working on them, without breaking the current setup.
51
52 After all, if someone wants to setup a Gentoo install *without* networking
53 they are very much doing a specialist thing, and can deal with it
54 themselves. So I don't think we should give too much time to that
55 use-case, in terms of implementation effort; staying out of the way when
56 the user tells us to is all that's required, and that's easy: do nothing,
57 or in this case, don't force any dependencies on higher-level network
58 managers, unless required for correct functioning.
59
60 Regards,
61 steveL
62 --
63 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)