Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[William Hubbs]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 09:03:06PM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> >> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
> >> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
> >> > is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
> >> > misleading eventually.
> >>
> >> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
> >
> > I don't know about "best-networking". ;-) One reason we are splitting it
> > out also is so it can have its own development/release cycle; the
> > oldnet stuff is responsible for about 1/3 of the bugs against OpenRc
> > right now, and it is very difficult to test because of all of the
> > possibilities.
>
> You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
> point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
> possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
> gentoo-networking. Its really a shame because this dependency based
> networking is really one of the real strengths of Gentoo and its
> really just being given the cold shoulder. Our dependency based init
> system was one of the reasons many people used Gentoo back in the day
> (besides the zomg its source its faster use -O6 crowd).

Nothing is being obsoleted; it is just being separated into its own
package, per robbat2's request. I have no ideahow that translates into
giving this system the cold shoulder.It just makes it possible for more
development to happen easier with it.

> In our discussions I've suggested trimming back the support in the
> networking scripts from all the various options (they support 4 DHCP
> clients for example) and slowly push these scripts to be installed by
> the package and maintained by the package maintainer (e.g. the pump
> script can be managed by the net-misc/pump maintainer and so on and so
> forth). Give them a name (systemd did by calling these snippets unit
> files) like OpenRC net snippets (Don't let me come up with names, I'm
> not good at that part, just ask my co-workers) and maintain an "API"
> for them.
 
How exactly is anything I've said stopping any of this from happening?

William