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
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...
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.
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...
28 Yup. Which is steev's "functional" point, so you seem to be in agreement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
60 Regards,
61 steveL
62 --
63 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)