| 1 |
On 03/12/13 23:11, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
>>> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...] |
| 9 |
>>>>> Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc |
| 10 |
>>>>> use flag is temporary. |
| 11 |
>>>>> I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along with a |
| 12 |
>>>>> newsitem that instructed you to emerge the netifrc package if you |
| 13 |
>>>>> want the legacy network stack, but some users/devs felt that |
| 14 |
>>>>> Ishould go further to make sure netifrc remains installed on |
| 15 |
>>>>> their systems. |
| 16 |
>>>> As one of those devs, I feel now may be a good time to ask.... What |
| 17 |
>>>> are we doing about this? In my opinion, anyone removing net |
| 18 |
>>>> support from the stage3's should be killed with fire. That said, I |
| 19 |
>>>> don't care if it's netifrc or whatever as long as it is properly |
| 20 |
>>>> documented and actually usable. |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> Thoughts on how we move forward? |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> Thanks, Zero |
| 25 |
>>>> |
| 26 |
>>> Well, part of this conversation needs to be, what is the default |
| 27 |
>>> networking stack that we want to have in gentoo? IMO that should |
| 28 |
>>> remain netifrc but that's just my personal opinion. |
| 29 |
>> I personally like netifrc default but there is no good way to use it as |
| 30 |
>> default we will need to keep use flag arbitrary long or add netifrc to |
| 31 |
>> @system but it will return us back to the problems of users who doesn't |
| 32 |
>> want to have netifrc on their systems. And with the rise of systems and NM |
| 33 |
>> the number of such users will grow. Anyway I'd like to see base system herd |
| 34 |
>> vote. |
| 35 |
> I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which |
| 36 |
> has the following rdepend settings: |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> RDEPEND=" || ( |
| 39 |
> net-misc/netifrc |
| 40 |
> >=sys-apps/openrc-0.12[newnet] |
| 41 |
> net-misc/badvpn |
| 42 |
> net-misc/dhcpcd |
| 43 |
> net-misc/netctl |
| 44 |
> net-misc/NetworkManager |
| 45 |
> net-misc/wicd )" |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Does anyone see an issue with setting it up this way? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in |
| 51 |
random package(s) a la binary-distribution style |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
just update the handbook to include the 'emerge netifrc' step and |
| 54 |
mention it's just one possibility |
Archives