| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a |
| 3 |
> USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if they really |
| 4 |
> don't want it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
We don't have to put this in @system at all. We could just have a |
| 7 |
virtual/network-manager, like we have virtual/cron, virtual/logger, |
| 8 |
virtual/mta, etc. None of these are installed by default; you have to |
| 9 |
choose one as part of your installation process. The more I read this |
| 10 |
thread, the more I agree with this approach; let the user make the |
| 11 |
choice as part of the installation process. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Just as a side note, after reading the thread up through this point, I'm |
| 14 |
> terrified of the individuals who wish to remove networking support from |
| 15 |
> stage3 entirely. If anyone wants to push that idea then that needs to |
| 16 |
> be addressed by the council. Period. Such a major change is going to |
| 17 |
> cause a holy war, and myself and others will actively revert any change |
| 18 |
> which removes net from stage3 under the guise of "critical breakage" |
| 19 |
> unless there is council direction that says we are no longer including |
| 20 |
> net support in the stage3s. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I am in agreement with Rich and Peter. This isn't a matter of breaking |
| 23 |
the stages; it is a matter of us getting out of the way and letting the |
| 24 |
users pick the network stack they want. We do this for the kernel, boot |
| 25 |
loader, etc, so I don't understand why you feel we need council |
| 26 |
direction to make a similar change for the network manager. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives