On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Tobias Klausmann <klaus...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote: >> William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put >> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default? >> >> I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more >> desktop-targeted to me. The network script sets the domain name >> and bonding, dhcpcd script starts dhcpcd (which can control more than >> a single interface) and wpa_supplicant script is responsible for wifi. > > I'm with nightmorph: we should have exactly one way to configure > networking (i.e. exactly one syntax). > > That said, switching to newnet would be a huge mess for everybody > who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual, > as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they > configure their nets (people don't like that kind of stuff if the > machine is 400 miles away); they would also have to find a way to > build their setups in the new "language". Servers tend to have > more complicated setups network-wise than workstations (think > firewalls, VPN endpoint, traffic observation, ...).
the same is true for everyone who already runs newnet (like me). in fact, i do not even use the newnet conf.d stuff, but rather take advantage of support for /etc/ifup.eth* in /etc/init.d/network. that way i can configure the networking with iproute2 or any other tool that i already know the syntax of. no need to learn ridiculously convoluted array syntax foo for /etc/init.d/net.eth*. so please just keep the network init script as a use flag or extra package or something, so that one is not forced to use the old net stuff (again). P.S.: newnet does not in any way force you to use DHCP or WLAN or anything like that, so please stop spreading misinformation. -Bene
