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 ;-) |