| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...] |
| 6 |
>> Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc |
| 7 |
>> use flag is temporary. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along with a |
| 10 |
>> newsitem that instructed you to emerge the netifrc package if you |
| 11 |
>> want the legacy network stack, but some users/devs felt that |
| 12 |
>> Ishould go further to make sure netifrc remains installed on |
| 13 |
>> their systems. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> As one of those devs, I feel now may be a good time to ask.... What |
| 16 |
> are we doing about this? In my opinion, anyone removing net |
| 17 |
> support from the stage3's should be killed with fire. That said, I |
| 18 |
> don't care if it's netifrc or whatever as long as it is properly |
| 19 |
> documented and actually usable. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Thoughts on how we move forward? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Thanks, Zero |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default |
| 27 |
networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? IMO that should |
| 28 |
remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
After deciding that, I expect we should decide how to include it. My |
| 31 |
guess would be, since for whatever reason we don't want netifrc as |
| 32 |
part of @system or a dep of baselayout-2 or anything like that, we'd |
| 33 |
need to add it to the special releng include list? |
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlKc+qEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAu6AD/RpeD8NsMsjt4X5EKYe6Tkixu |
| 38 |
6qzCONtd44U+grcxKr0BALw1EaxdI/EQ+Fo3eASssQ8fUH/dRFus5EUPo46dPz0L |
| 39 |
=Bmfz |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives