| 1 |
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are |
| 7 |
> issues with ARM, hence my previous suggestion that it might make sense |
| 8 |
> to vary this by profile. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Definitely - but then we have to do everything in the profiles, and at |
| 12 |
least for ARM, there are currently 6 profiles, and we're considering |
| 13 |
introducing a 7th (neon), and we will need to add aarch64, which will be |
| 14 |
at least 2 more. I suppose we could do it in the base arm profile... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Let me try my post again, with a bit more quoting: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 19 |
> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 20 |
> > What if he wants to |
| 21 |
> > put a stage3 on a disk for his amd64 box from his arm box? I'd love to |
| 22 |
> > see him emulate an amd64 from his arm to install dhcpcd. |
| 23 |
> ... |
| 24 |
> > I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by |
| 25 |
> > default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as |
| 26 |
> > networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a |
| 27 |
> > stage3 on a device and then access it from the network? |
| 28 |
> > Almost nothing |
| 29 |
> > in my place has a monitor (amd64 and arm alike) and I use one of my two |
| 30 |
> > laptops to talk to everything else. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Hit your head on the wall because it doesn't contain a kernel? |
| 33 |
> Stage3s in general aren't functional systems. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Insofar as much as he was talking about ARM I get the point. Insofar |
| 36 |
> as he is taking about amd64, not so much. Which he was talking about |
| 37 |
> in that paragraph I can only guess at. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> But as I later said in the same email: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think |
| 42 |
> there would be more of a case for removing it. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> After all, we stick openrc and portage (the PM) in the stage3 and you |
| 45 |
> don't exactly need those in order to run Gentoo... |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Rich |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
While you don't need those specifically to run Gentoo, the point of the |
| 50 |
stage3 is to have a workable base to start with. So people are very |
| 51 |
much free to yank out openrc and put in, say, systemd, and rip out |
| 52 |
portage and add in paludis, if they so choose, and make those available. |
| 53 |
And from the traffic I've seen on the systemd list, it looks like they |
| 54 |
are adding some sort of networking to systemd itself as well, so we |
| 55 |
probably will need a virtual at some point. My specific point of the |
| 56 |
email though, was you saying that a stage3 in general aren't functional |
| 57 |
- but they are - they are the very base of a functional system, and you |
| 58 |
simply add things on top, or replace things with your preferred methods. |
| 59 |
A stage1 or a stage2 isn't particularly functional. |
Archives