Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. -- Jacob For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. Are you ready? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jacob Godserv jacobgods...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. Both parties have known each other for several years. If you had seen the conversation on IRC between them, you would not have categorized this as name-calling. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment that people without context can easily misunderstand. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv jacobgods...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. It's okay. We go back some years. We've met in person. I can read Mike's text tone. We're just playin'. Besides, I learned something important, namely that despite my configs, Claws Mail wasn't behaving properly, so I had to make a few changes. S'all good. At no point was I hurt by the nub label. I think I replied NO U, which is of course how we handle things off-list. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv jacobgods...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. It's okay. We go back some years. We've met in person. I can read Mike's text tone. We're just playin'. Besides, I learned something important, namely that despite my configs, Claws Mail wasn't behaving properly, so I had to make a few changes. S'all good. At no point was I hurt by the nub label. I think I replied NO U, which is of course how we handle things off-list. Yeah but I was also wondering why Mike was calling you names like that. As 99% of people on this list don't get the inside joke maybe this is not the best media for it. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:57:42 Petteri Räty wrote: On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. It's okay. We go back some years. We've met in person. I can read Mike's text tone. We're just playin'. Besides, I learned something important, namely that despite my configs, Claws Mail wasn't behaving properly, so I had to make a few changes. S'all good. At no point was I hurt by the nub label. I think I replied NO U, which is of course how we handle things off-list. Yeah but I was also wondering why Mike was calling you names like that. As 99% of people on this list don't get the inside joke maybe this is not the best media for it. because he's a stupid nub -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:57:42 Petteri Räty wrote: On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues for more people than just your target. It's okay. We go back some years. We've met in person. I can read Mike's text tone. We're just playin'. Besides, I learned something important, namely that despite my configs, Claws Mail wasn't behaving properly, so I had to make a few changes. S'all good. At no point was I hurt by the nub label. I think I replied NO U, which is of course how we handle things off-list. Yeah but I was also wondering why Mike was calling you names like that. As 99% of people on this list don't get the inside joke maybe this is not the best media for it. because he's a stupid nub -mike Is that pronounced 'nub' or 'noob' ? Man I should really go to SCALE next year :X
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:32:49 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: because he's a stupid nub -mike NO U Is that pronounced 'nub' or 'noob' ? Man I should really go to SCALE next year :X We got the official invite from the organizers, as well as the CFP/talks. I'm interested in going yet again, especially since it's moved to a new venue. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:27:50 -0500 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. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
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, ...). So we would make things more complicated for a large user base for the benefit of desktop users who can't get DHCP/Wifi to work with oldnet. I doubt the latter is a larger group than the former. Regards, Tobias -- panic(%s: CORRUPTED BTREE OR SOMETHING, __FUNCTION__); linux-2.6.6/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On 09/20/2010 11:10 AM, Benedikt Böhm wrote: 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*. if you are using /etc/ifup.eth* what would prevent having oldnet run those as the newnet do? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2010 09:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered in our documentation. Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the default? 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? Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. If I go this route, I'll probably just get rid of newnet in the next release entirely. newnet is a single script, network, which sets up all of the static routes and static interfaces. It is small and simple, but the disadvantage of it is that you can't stop/start a single interface. William Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know this is more work on doc writers, but I don't think that will equal the pain users will experience being forced one way or another. - -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Developer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyXO30ACgkQl5yvQNBFVTVhuQCbBG2owroUS8ZFko2oEE1ZIYgQ rZ0An19HgxWA9Ltat3owfIB5cvqjdRGE =YqFX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400 Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know this is more work on doc writers, but I don't think that will equal the pain users will experience being forced one way or another. I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group preferring newnet could still benefit from it. - -- Best regards, Michał Górny -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkyXQCIACgkQnGSe5QXeB7tR2gCfeix45C4N1MFvHf864ReeavLn xz8AoOUiUpwYb+Dan1LpmwhCHKdTO/nN =fcQc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On 09/20/2010 07:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group preferring newnet could still benefit from it. This pretty-much guarantees that arch testers/etc will end up testing it one way or the other, and not both. That could lead to QA issues when packages work fine for some users and not for others. Granted, this is mainly a concern for lower-level network-config related apps. I'd hate to be the maintainer of an ebuild that needs to take into account multiple network configuration options. I still haven't heard a good reason as to why we need two. I'm running oldnet (baselayout-1), and changing to newnet would be a pain, but I don't expect the distro to take this into account for my sake when making decisions like this. I'm sure people running newnet feel similarly. The only argument I've heard for newnet is that it is more DHCP-friendly or something like that (not that DHCP is required). However, I've never found getting DHCP to work particularly difficult - it practically comes like that by default (just emerge dhcpcd and add the interface to your init.d). I imagine wireless might be more complex. One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring individual interfaces up and down. That sounds like a potential drawback. Granted, most of the sorts of things that I'd like to conditionally bring up (vpn, ipv6 tunnel, etc) probably won't use the network scripts anyway. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote: One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring individual interfaces up and down. openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know if it is still the case but there are some open bugs on bugzilla.g.o regarding ppp and openrc. This is a serious show stopper for newnet. So, either 1. both oldnet and newnet or 2. oldnet only would be the prudent alternatives (again, assuming problems with newnet and ppp exist). -- Eray
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sunday, September 19, 2010 20:27:50 William Hubbs wrote: I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered in our documentation. this is going to be the default for stable (in other words, nothing is changing). hashing out the future of the two is a separate topic. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400 Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know this is more work on doc writers, but I don't think that will equal the pain users will experience being forced one way or another. Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation to allow for the new syntax and way of doing things present in the oldnet behavior of OpenRC. That's ~weeks to ~months of work, even if there's someone besides me doing it. I'll have to do all that effort and time commitment yet again if we have to rewrite everything once newnet becomes the default after everyone uses oldnet for a while. Worse yet, if BOTH are enabled, and we have to document both simultaneously. Then we'd have to fill up our docs with stupid conditionals: IF you're using oldnet, use THIS complicated config, but IF you're using newnet, then follow THIS complicated set of steps. Documenting both config styles, whether simultaneously or sequentially, is massively complex, unnecessary, and a complete waste of time. I'd probably quit if I had to redo everything more than once, and then there would be absolutely no one to work on any docs. That's not a threat by the way, just a statement of likely outcome. I simply wouldn't have enough spare time to adjust the suddenly broken mass of documentation for the new config style. Please. Just stick to *one* config. I strongly suggest that it be oldnet, given all the problems with newnet raised in this thread. But more importantly, because *the groundork has already been done* when I wrote the OpenRC Migration Guide. I can piggyback all my efforts off that guide, which will greatly shorten the amount of time needed for the rest of the documentation. Otherwise a completely new migration guide will have to be written, AND all the docs will need to be adjusted to THAT one. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkyXnpYACgkQxPWMzpKk6kNdZwCgrVN6D12QzaHw5lXZl+h610PL /ccAni2xDC+CWwkTw9GKBCvjT/IDqcj9 =RxdN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:49:08 Joshua Saddler wrote: Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation to allow for the new syntax and way of doing things present in the oldnet behavior of OpenRC. That's ~weeks to ~months of work, even if there's someone besides me doing it. I'll have to do all that effort and time commitment yet again if we have to rewrite everything once newnet becomes the default after everyone uses oldnet for a while. man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. Please. Just stick to *one* config. I strongly suggest that it be oldnet, given all the problems with newnet raised in this thread. But more importantly, because *the groundork has already been done* when I wrote the OpenRC Migration Guide. I can piggyback all my efforts off that guide, which will greatly shorten the amount of time needed for the rest of the documentation. Otherwise a completely new migration guide will have to be written, AND all the docs will need to be adjusted to THAT one. we're going with oldnet by default in stable and that'll be what the GDP has to worry about. newnet will still be there, but people will have to manually opt out of oldnet and opt in to newnet. i dont think we need to worry about documenting it in the handbook for now ... the bundled files with openrc are sufficient. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
Hi! On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: 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. Still, newnet is geared towards such setups and it is reflected in the way it handles things. /This/ I meant by language. And yes, going from complicated arrays to iproute2 syntax *is* a change that may blow up in your face, if you don't use those tools every day. I'm not saying change is bad, but needless change with little functional benefit is - especially in this case where you can have the benefits of newnet (simply using the system tools in scripts) without switching from oldnet to newnet, as Luca has pointed out. Regards, Tobias -- panic(%s: CORRUPTED BTREE OR SOMETHING, __FUNCTION__); linux-2.6.6/fs/xfs/xfs_bmp.c
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
Tobias Klausmann dixit (2010-09-20, 20:34): On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: 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. Still, newnet is geared towards such setups and it is reflected in the way it handles things. /This/ I meant by language. And yes, going from complicated arrays to iproute2 syntax *is* a change that may blow up in your face, if you don't use those tools every day. As far as I can see, oldnet (at least if you do modules=iproute2 which most sane users probably do) is *also* basically iproute2 syntax, only wrapped in some arrays: routes_Okno=( default via 192.168.0.254 default via 2001:foo:bar::1 ) I could add other typical iproute2 clauses to that config, like src ip, or metric n. Same with the IP address clause. Flexible, already documented. +1 for keeping oldnet. -- [a]
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
Eray Aslan wrote: On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote: One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring individual interfaces up and down. openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know if it is still the case but there are some open bugs on bugzilla.g.o regarding ppp and openrc. This is a serious show stopper for newnet. So, either 1. both oldnet and newnet or 2. oldnet only would be the prudent alternatives (again, assuming problems with newnet and ppp exist). If this is the same ppp I use when on dial-up, this would make me reconsider using Gentoo. If my DSL goes out, I must have ppp and it work. We are in the sticks and the one time it has gone out since getting DSL, it was out several days. I still have wvdial installed and all the needed ppp drivers in my kernel. I don't use it often but when I need it, I need it. For this user, I would have to have a way to keep ppp available if this is the same ppp I use for dial-up. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered in our documentation. Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the default? 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? Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered in our documentation. Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the default? 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? Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. If I go this route, I'll probably just get rid of newnet in the next release entirely. newnet is a single script, network, which sets up all of the static routes and static interfaces. It is small and simple, but the disadvantage of it is that you can't stop/start a single interface. William pgprtAh1uP6kS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc stabilization update
On Sunday, September 19, 2010 21:22:06 William Hubbs wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote: I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question. The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild. People migrating from stable will know the oldnet option, and this is the only way to configure the network scripts that is actually covered in our documentation. Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the default? 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? Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. If I go this route, I'll probably just get rid of newnet in the next release entirely. newnet is a single script, network, which sets up all of the static routes and static interfaces. It is small and simple, but the disadvantage of it is that you can't stop/start a single interface. i suggested in a previous thread that we depreciate newnet if not kill it off entirely. the oldnet stuff should become the default once again. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
