| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> <snip> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Maybe I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of ways to |
| 7 |
have gentoo *running* in a box without it having network connection. The |
| 8 |
thing is that makes like 0.01% of the total installs. It's not a default |
| 9 |
install, it isn't on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one, |
| 10 |
but I really don't consider that an installation), and most importantly, |
| 11 |
AFAIK, it's not something any John Doe would do. Offline installations and |
| 12 |
"runtimes" are for geeks that use linux for a long time and know how the |
| 13 |
system work and have the knowledge to build a stage4 or chroot and move it |
| 14 |
to another box. It's not something technically difficult for us "geeks", |
| 15 |
but would take ages for some non-geek to do it. |
| 16 |
Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do something to |
| 17 |
his box other that "pacman <something>" (yeah, he's on arch) and he's using |
| 18 |
linux for some time now. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The bottom line here is, does @system have to have virtual/network-provider? |
| 21 |
- Yes -> Make it RDEPEND; |
| 22 |
- No -> don't care and just set some use flags. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The question above is more a political one than technical. Everyone here |
| 25 |
knows that a system doesn't have to have networking support for it to boot, |
| 26 |
we can't even guarantee that networking support is in the kernel (at least |
| 27 |
I don't see it using kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default meaning |
| 28 |
that 99% or more of the people will use or *need* it? <--- political |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sorry if I was too long on this :) |
Archives