-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/10/2013 01:46 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
You're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/14/2013 04:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:47:01PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
OK, I see what you mean.
To be clear, I'm not ready to have a stage3 without netifrc. If / when we
update catalyst so that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/14/2013 07:59 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
You make some good points. I'll answer your questions as best as I can,
but we can consider this thread closed. I will not try to put the
virtual in, but I will come back to the list soon and start
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:42:48 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
By all means have an @useful-utils set or some kind of profile that
auto-installs a list of packages like openssh, vim, and so on.
However, these are not required to bootstrap a system
Since we do want net-misc/rsync,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:57:55PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any
reason.
I think
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:56:33AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote:
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:56:33AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote:
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:47:01PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
OK, I see what you mean.
To be clear, I'm not ready to have a stage3 without netifrc. If / when we
update catalyst so that the new stage3 is the sum of @system and
additional packages, we can move netifrc to that
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:57:04 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:47:01PM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
OK, I see what you mean.
To be clear, I'm not ready to have a stage3 without netifrc. If /
when we update catalyst so that the new stage3
You make some good points. I'll answer your questions as best as I can,
but we can consider this thread closed. I will not try to put the
virtual in, but I will come back to the list soon and start another
thread.
In a nutshell, our networking is a beast, and we should try to simplify
it some how
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 06:59:50PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
You make some good points. I'll answer your questions as best as I can,
but we can consider this thread closed. I will not try to put the
virtual in, but I will come back to the list soon and start another
thread.
In a nutshell,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, William Hubbs wrote:
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any
reason.
William,
the push for the use
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
snip
Honestly, I'm not really sure why anyone would want to make stage3 less
functional than it already is but honestly net isn't something I'm ready
to give up just
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by
default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as
networking.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are
issues with ARM, hence my previous
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski st...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware
My issue with what we are currently doing is not whether we have a
default network provider in the stages or not, but it is just that the
netifrc use flag on OpenRC is bogus. OpenRC doesn't need netifrc for any
reason.
I think if we are going to have a default network manager in the
stages we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/08/2013 05:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a
USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I can honestly say most of the time when setup my arm systems I'm
unpacking the arm stage3 on an amd64 and then booting the arm device
with the base stage3 and fixing things from there. I suppose it is
possible
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:28 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
Ok, now the concern is becoming more clear. You're intending to boot
directly to the stage3 and not chroot into it, and so you want the
stage3 to be a fully-functional userspace, though you don't actually
need it to contain a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/09/2013 10:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I can honestly say most of the time when setup my arm systems I'm
unpacking the arm stage3 on an amd64 and then booting
On 12/09/2013 10:50 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 12/08/2013 05:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a
USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by
default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as
networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:52:08AM -0500, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
1.) If we are going to stuff this into @system then we probably want a
USE=nonet flag to allow users to not pull anything in if they really
don't want it.
We don't have to put this in @system at all. We could just have a
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 03:34:59AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
I can see the argument in making the installation of a network manager
part of the handbook. We already have a whole page on how to set up
the network for the install CD itself assuming dhcp doesn't just work.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
2.) having dhcpcd in this list will cause everything else to be cleaned
out that that is bd. imho, dhcpcd shouldn't be on this list at all
purely from a safety perspective. The stages will have dhcpcd so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/2013 07:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Honestly, I'm not really sure why anyone would want to make stage3 less
functional than it already is but honestly net isn't something I'm ready
to give up just yet.
It isn't about making the stage3
Rich Freeman wrote:
Now that Gentoo apparently offers a wide selection of network
managers, perhaps it makes sense to have the user pick which
one they want to use.
+1
Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
Choice is fine, I love choice, but to have a user unpack a stage tarball
and find no way at
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
Choice is fine, I love choice, but to have a user unpack a stage tarball
and find no way at all to handle their networking that's just ugly.
I mean we could just have dhcpcd in @system and let people figure
Rich Freeman wrote:
I can see the argument in making the installation of a network manager
part of the handbook. We already have a whole page on how to set up
the network for the install CD itself assuming dhcp doesn't just work.
I think the handbook should at a minimum have a recipe for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/12/13 08:56 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the stage3 could include a dhcp client and (ideally imo) netifrc,
even though they aren't a part of @system, that would help prevent the
stuff missing, damnit, have to reboot back to livecd cycle. Since
it isn't part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/03/2013 04:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
has the following rdepend settings:
RDEPEND= || (
net-misc/netifrc
=sys-apps/openrc-0.12[newnet]
Am 04.12.2013 23:31, schrieb William Hubbs:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 09:01 +0100, Martin Gysel wrote:
if you're on x86/amd64 and want to prepare a sdcard for e.g. arm. you
extract the stage3 to the card but then you can't just chroot and emerge
netifrc...
on the other hand, as long as busybox' default config includes a dhcp
client one
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
In this day and age not having a network-capable install out the box is
silly. The first major action after unpacking the tarball is going to be
adding new packages and doing updates, the source code for which is on
On 04/12/13 23:25, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
random package(s) a la binary-distribution style
What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in
On 05/12/13 00:36, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200,
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 07:14:37PM -0600, mingdao wrote:
Just curious why you don't also include net-misc/connman?
wicd doesn't support nl80211 and isn't being developed upstream anymore, so
it's just a matter of time before it's demise.
I didn't include connman only because I didn't know
On 03/12/13 23:11, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 12/02/2013
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
random package(s) a la binary-distribution style
What about the stages? Don't we need some form of net support in
stage 3?
William
signature.asc
Description:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
random package(s) a la binary-distribution style
What about the stages? Don't we need
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
random package(s) a la
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:36:37PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
Thinking on this further, the same logic could be applied to
sys-apps/openrc, and probably a few other packages that are not
build/toolchain critical. I suppose we need to draw a sanity line
somewhere. ^_^
I think what you are
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
random package(s) a la binary-distribution
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:45:22AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do
On 12/05/2013 08:13 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:45:22AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM
On 05/12/2013 01:45, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful except pull in
On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...]
Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc
use flag
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
has the following rdepend settings:
RDEPEND= || (
net-misc/netifrc
On 2013-12-03, at 6:00 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
has the following
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 03:11:30PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
has the following rdepend settings:
RDEPEND= || (
net-misc/netifrc
=sys-apps/openrc-0.12[newnet]
net-misc/badvpn
net-misc/dhcpcd
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
*snip*
The other two cases need a clarification:
3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!?
That's correct, you do not need one if you are using something like
networkmanager or dhcpcd in master mode.
4) netifrc newnet:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
*snip*
The other two cases need a clarification:
3) -netifrc -newnet: no network stack?!?
That's correct, you do not need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 12/02/2013 03:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: [...]
Also, the other message in this thread is correct; the netifrc
use flag is temporary.
I originally planned to release openrc-0.12.x along
I've just upgraded to the latest openrc version; I was aware of the
netifrc USE flag introduction
(http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275748). But so far
the presence of the newnet flag was actually a switch between the old
and the new network stack, given that one of the two should
The only one unclear case is 4 (+netifrc +newnet) in this case stack that
is used is set by enabling required stack by rc-update. Case 3 means that
openrc doesn't provide default network stack and it's up to user which
stack to use (e.g. NM), so no problem here.
Also +netifrc flag is temporal to
62 matches
Mail list logo
