| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 2 |
<zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by |
| 4 |
> default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as |
| 5 |
> networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a |
| 6 |
> stage3 on a device and then access it from the network? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Hit your head on the wall because it doesn't contain a kernel? |
| 9 |
Stage3s in general aren't functional systems. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I really feel that while the rest of the world is trying to get |
| 12 |
> more functionality out of their hardware we are trying to save ~200k and |
| 13 |
> possibly crippling user experience in the process. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The rest of the world would just stick systemd, dbus, pulseaudio, |
| 16 |
xorg, an initramfs, every kernel module under the sun, ndiswrapper, |
| 17 |
300 windows driver blobs, and a network manager that uses gtk+ to |
| 18 |
configure your network on the stage3. That is how they get more |
| 19 |
functionality out of their hardware. It just isn't the Gentoo way. |
| 20 |
:) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Is removing ~200k really worth the potential downside? Honestly, if we |
| 24 |
> are going on the merits of smaller downloads let's argue about using xz |
| 25 |
> instead of bzip2 for the stages... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm not concerned about space use at all. I think the main argument |
| 28 |
for leaving oldnet on the stage3s is that it doesn't do anything if |
| 29 |
you don't symlink it, just like openssh. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think |
| 32 |
there would be more of a case for removing it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives