1 |
William Hubbs posted on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:03:54 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> [ Duncan wrote...] |
4 |
|
5 |
>> However, if we keep newnet around as a masked USE flag until it's no |
6 |
>> longer worth continuing, it'll give people already using it time to |
7 |
>> switch back, and/or to build up their own site scripts as workarounds, |
8 |
>> as newnet gradually gets more and more stale and broken. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> It won't be "masked", it just won't be the default setup, and you will |
11 |
> have to do some work that will not be documented to turn it on. |
12 |
|
13 |
I had seen some suggestions of masking it, and while it hadn't been fully |
14 |
discussed, that made sense to me as a USE flag to mask by default, to make |
15 |
it clear that its use was discouraged. |
16 |
|
17 |
And with no documentation and with someone else pointing out that in |
18 |
practice, arch-testers are likely to test only one or the other, and with |
19 |
oldnet the default it'll be oldnet, realistically, support for it in any |
20 |
of the network packages beyond openrc itself, is going to be somewhat |
21 |
iffy. As such, IMO discouraging usage, upto and including masking the |
22 |
newnet USE flag, does make some sense, while allowing those who are |
23 |
already using it some time to gracefully find other solutions, or create |
24 |
their own, starting with copying the existing newnet scripts if desired. |
25 |
|
26 |
But that can certainly be debated, and arguably, each arch team and |
27 |
optional network package could make that decision on their own, deciding |
28 |
to support and test both ways, if desired. I just think it's more work to |
29 |
support /properly/ than it's worth, in which case, masking the USE flag |
30 |
seems a reasonable way to communicate its unsupported status. |
31 |
|
32 |
>> Finally, I'm not sure it absolutely needs it, but for clarity-sake and |
33 |
>> to avoid second-guessing and debate continuing long past the point of |
34 |
>> usefulness, I believe a council vote on the issue is appropriate. |
35 |
|
36 |
> If we keep oldnet as the default, there is nothing for the council to |
37 |
> vote on as far as I can see, because stable users are covered in the |
38 |
> migration guide at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml. |
39 |
> If they follow that path, there is nothing special they need to do |
40 |
> outside of that, so there isn't any affect. |
41 |
|
42 |
Good point. I had forgotten to take the current status of oldnet-only |
43 |
support into account, and was thinking that was the best way to settle the |
44 |
question when the inevitable complaints came. It still might be useful if |
45 |
someone involved wants some CYA, but as you point out, since newnet was |
46 |
never really supported, specifically /not/ supporting it isn't really a |
47 |
change of status, so no council vote actually needed. =:^) |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
51 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
52 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |