| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:47 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which |
| 3 |
> still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there |
| 4 |
> being a regression. A regression means that something worked before, |
| 5 |
> but it doesn't now, and that is not the case if you accept the defaults. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Agreed, not a regression. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
[snip] |
| 11 |
> Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about |
| 12 |
> turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking |
| 13 |
> the ebuild, unless I am missing something. If I am, definitely let me |
| 14 |
> know. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If the USE-flags of an ebuild are visible to the user, it can be |
| 18 |
assumed that they are safe to use (after following the documentation |
| 19 |
and warnings if any). Which means that the maintainer needs to be even |
| 20 |
more careful w.r.t. system packages; providing adequate warnings and |
| 21 |
documentation. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If there's no documentation on how to use the new network scripts; |
| 24 |
there should atleast be a big /FAT/ warning. Obviously the |
| 25 |
documentation must be updated soon as well; unless the ebuild never |
| 26 |
intends to make it to stable ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Personally, I wouldn't even dream of adding a core package like openrc |
| 29 |
to ~arch until there was documentation about unexpected behaviour |
| 30 |
(default or not). But to each his own. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo |
Archives