| 1 |
The only one unclear case is 4 (+netifrc +newnet) in this case stack that |
| 2 |
is used is set by enabling required stack by rc-update. Case 3 means that |
| 3 |
openrc doesn't provide default network stack and it's up to user which |
| 4 |
stack to use (e.g. NM), so no problem here. |
| 5 |
Also +netifrc flag is temporal to make update path clean and it may be |
| 6 |
removed in future. |
| 7 |
On Dec 1, 2013 2:20 PM, "Alessandro DE LAURENZIS" <just22.adl@×××××.com> |
| 8 |
wrote: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I've just upgraded to the latest openrc version; I was aware of the |
| 11 |
> netifrc USE flag introduction |
| 12 |
> (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275748). But so far |
| 13 |
> the presence of the newnet flag was actually a "switch" between the old |
| 14 |
> and the new network stack, given that one of the two should (must?) be |
| 15 |
> added in any case. |
| 16 |
> Now the presence of both netifrc and newnet could make a bit of |
| 17 |
> confusion, particularly from a user perspective. We have of course 4 |
| 18 |
> cases; two of them are clear: |
| 19 |
> 1) netifrc -newnet: "legacy" network stack; |
| 20 |
> 2) -netifrc newnet: "new" network stack. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The other two cases need a clarification: |
| 23 |
> 3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!? |
| 24 |
> 4) netifrc newnet: ??? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> This should be definitely documented somewhere (I didn't find anything). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> And, the last question: what's the point to have two flags instead the |
| 29 |
> good old one? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Thanks for any clarification. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Alessandro DE LAURENZIS |
| 35 |
> [mailto:just22.adl@×××××.com] |
| 36 |
> LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
Archives