| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Steven J. Long wrote: |
| 4 |
> Thanks, that sounds reasonable: one minor nitpick, though. Could you not |
| 5 |
> call it 'stdnet'? Since from all the other discussion it appears like this |
| 6 |
> is not going away soon for the vast majority of users, but simply being |
| 7 |
> maintained as another package, which makes sense. And it is the standard Gentoo |
| 8 |
> networking setup. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That way, 'newnet' is clearly a more modern variant, but no-one's disparaging |
| 11 |
> the traditional setup, which is after all, still the default. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
+1 It is something that had me puzzled for quite a while. Was I |
| 14 |
supposed to migrate? Was the current somehow broken? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm still not quite sure what newnet does that oldnet doesn't, or |
| 17 |
why somebody felt it was necessary to make a new package (and no, |
| 18 |
let's not discuss that here). Whatever it is, ideally, it would |
| 19 |
reflected in the name(s). And package descriptions. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Tobias |
Archives