Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:34:00
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up by "Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina"
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?
8 Hit your head on the wall because it doesn't contain a kernel?
9 Stage3s in general aren't functional systems.
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.
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 :)
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...
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.
31 If it actually had collisions with other network managers I think
32 there would be more of a case for removing it.
34 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>