| 1 |
On Wednesday 24 April 2013 19:17:01 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:34:46PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:16:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote |
| 4 |
> > > Considering our default configuration ships sshd (an argument we don't |
| 5 |
> > > need to rehash here), it seems a bit silly to not ship networking |
| 6 |
> > > support by default. I'd rather not do it as part of the system set, |
| 7 |
> > > though that would be consistent with what we're doing with ssh, and it |
| 8 |
> > > is still override-able. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > To handle the various possible cases, maybe we need a "virtual/net" as |
| 11 |
> > part of the system set, which can be satisfied by either oldnet or |
| 12 |
> > newnet or whatever. The install ISO will have a basic working network |
| 13 |
> > stack (IPV4+IPV6). After the initial install, the admin can do |
| 14 |
> > whatever. Maybe even invoke package.provided. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> This would actually be cleaner than a bogus dependency in OpenRC. |
| 17 |
> I would probably call it virtual/network-manager though. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Are there any issues with putting together a virtual like this and |
| 20 |
> adding it to @system? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
you've only talked about moving out "oldnet" which means "newnet" remains in |
| 23 |
openrc. that is technically a provider of virtual/network-init and we're back |
| 24 |
where we started: the standard Gentoo network init scripts aren't pulled in. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
what providers exactly would you see live in such a virtual ? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
if we do choose to go the virtual route (i don't see value here), i don't |
| 29 |
think the transitional phase can start there. if anything other than the |
| 30 |
standard Gentoo network scripts are provided, then it means people will end up |
| 31 |
with a broken system as portage won't bother installing it. network- |
| 32 |
manager/wpa_supplicant/etc... are pretty common. |
| 33 |
-mike |
Archives