Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:27:58
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc 0.12 - netifrc/newnet mix-up by "Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina"
1 On 12/09/2013 10:50 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
2 > On 12/08/2013 05:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
3 >> On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
4 >>> 1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a
5 >>> USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if they really
6 >>> don't want it.
7 >
8 >> We don't have to put this in @system at all. We could just have a
9 >> virtual/network-manager, like we have virtual/cron, virtual/logger,
10 >> virtual/mta, etc. None of these are installed by default; you have to
11 >> choose one as part of your installation process. The more I read this
12 >> thread, the more I agree with this approach; let the user make the
13 >> choice as part of the installation process.
14 >
15 >>> Just as a side note, after reading the thread up through this point, I'm
16 >>> terrified of the individuals who wish to remove networking support from
17 >>> stage3 entirely. If anyone wants to push that idea then that needs to
18 >>> be addressed by the council. Period. Such a major change is going to
19 >>> cause a holy war, and myself and others will actively revert any change
20 >>> which removes net from stage3 under the guise of "critical breakage"
21 >>> unless there is council direction that says we are no longer including
22 >>> net support in the stage3s.
23 >
24 >> I am in agreement with Rich and Peter. This isn't a matter of breaking
25 >> the stages; it is a matter of us getting out of the way and letting the
26 >> users pick the network stack they want. We do this for the kernel, boot
27 >> loader, etc, so I don't understand why you feel we need council
28 >> direction to make a similar change for the network manager.
29 >
30 >
31 > I am softening a bit, but I'm really concerned that the stages all of a
32 > sudden not having net is going to be an issue for people. Maybe I'm
33 > mistaken, but it is hard for me to imagine that moving to a stage3 with
34 > no net anything is an improvement. I suppose you can't download a
35 > stage3 without net, so you should typically be able to just chroot in...
37 And again I point at the precedent of having dhcp in stage3, then
38 removing it and people getting quite frustrated with having no way to
39 enable net properly.
41 We had the same type of problem before, and it was fixed.
43 Why are we trying to break it again, just so we fix it a week later when
44 the complaints become loud enough?
46 > I can honestly say most of the time when setup my arm systems I'm
47 > unpacking the arm stage3 on an amd64 and then booting the arm device
48 > with the base stage3 and fixing things from there. I suppose it is
49 > possible to use qemu to install things, as long as I don't mind
50 > pretending it's 1999 due to the slow emulation speeds... Yeah, I really
51 > don't see an improvement here. It works fine for "I'm an amd64 user and
52 > that's all I'll ever use" but when you start talking about smaller
53 > arches it really starts to become a hassle imho.
54 >
55 > -Zero
56 >