1 |
On 09/20/2010 07:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through |
3 |
> an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy |
4 |
> the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group |
5 |
> preferring newnet could still benefit from it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
This pretty-much guarantees that arch testers/etc will end up testing it |
9 |
one way or the other, and not both. That could lead to QA issues when |
10 |
packages work fine for some users and not for others. |
11 |
|
12 |
Granted, this is mainly a concern for lower-level network-config related |
13 |
apps. |
14 |
|
15 |
I'd hate to be the maintainer of an ebuild that needs to take into |
16 |
account multiple network configuration options. |
17 |
|
18 |
I still haven't heard a good reason as to why we need two. I'm running |
19 |
oldnet (baselayout-1), and changing to newnet would be a pain, but I |
20 |
don't expect the distro to take this into account for my sake when |
21 |
making decisions like this. I'm sure people running newnet feel similarly. |
22 |
|
23 |
The only argument I've heard for newnet is that it is more DHCP-friendly |
24 |
or something like that (not that DHCP is required). However, I've never |
25 |
found getting DHCP to work particularly difficult - it practically comes |
26 |
like that by default (just emerge dhcpcd and add the interface to your |
27 |
init.d). I imagine wireless might be more complex. |
28 |
|
29 |
One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring |
30 |
individual interfaces up and down. That sounds like a potential |
31 |
drawback. Granted, most of the sorts of things that I'd like to |
32 |
conditionally bring up (vpn, ipv6 tunnel, etc) probably won't use the |
33 |
network scripts anyway. |
34 |
|
35 |
Rich |