Re: [gentoo-dev] renaming gentoo-oldnet

[Doug Goldstein]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 01:49:46AM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:38 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
>> > Actually the plan is to generalize it so that it works with other init
>> > systems. Right now it is very tightly integrated with OpenRc, but there
>> > is interest in changing that, so adding openrc to the name would be
>> > misleading eventually.
>>
>> OK... so gentoo-networking? or just come up with own name? best-networking?
>
> I don't know about "best-networking". ;-) One reason we are splitting it
> out also is so it can have its own development/release cycle; the
> oldnet stuff is responsible for about 1/3 of the bugs against OpenRc
> right now, and it is very difficult to test because of all of the
> possibilities.

You and I have had this talk more times than I can remember at this
point. Using the name "oldnet" sucks and was one of the worst choices
possible. Looking through our IRC chats, I had also suggested
gentoo-networking. Its really a shame because this dependency based
networking is really one of the real strengths of Gentoo and its
really just being given the cold shoulder. Our dependency based init
system was one of the reasons many people used Gentoo back in the day
(besides the zomg its source its faster use -O6 crowd).

In our discussions I've suggested trimming back the support in the
networking scripts from all the various options (they support 4 DHCP
clients for example) and slowly push these scripts to be installed by
the package and maintained by the package maintainer (e.g. the pump
script can be managed by the net-misc/pump maintainer and so on and so
forth). Give them a name (systemd did by calling these snippets unit
files) like OpenRC net snippets (Don't let me come up with names, I'm
not good at that part, just ask my co-workers) and maintain an "API"
for them.

>
>> However, I do not understand how you can port it without changing the
>> notations... or lowering features... example: rc_net_*_provide,
>> rc_net_*_need, or the rc_config, rc_use, rc_net_*_provide="!net"
>> etc...
>>
>> Do you think systemd users can understand that /etc/conf.d/net is
>> actually a shell script? I hope this is not going to be eliminated, as
>> I use it a lot.
>
> Robin is going to do most of it I think; I'm not exactly sure what he
> has in mind.
>
> William
>

If we lose that flexibility and configurability then just give up on
OpenRC right now cause its dead because all interesting features are
gone and it'll just become an inferior init system that needs to be
replaced.

-- 
Doug Goldstein