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 virtual/network-manager, like we have virtual/cron, virtual/logger, virtual/mta, etc. None of these are installed by default; you have to choose one as part of your installation process. The more I read this thread, the more I agree with this approach; let the user make the choice as part of the installation process. > Just as a side note, after reading the thread up through this point, I'm > terrified of the individuals who wish to remove networking support from > stage3 entirely. If anyone wants to push that idea then that needs to > be addressed by the council. Period. Such a major change is going to > cause a holy war, and myself and others will actively revert any change > which removes net from stage3 under the guise of "critical breakage" > unless there is council direction that says we are no longer including > net support in the stage3s. I am in agreement with Rich and Peter. This isn't a matter of breaking the stages; it is a matter of us getting out of the way and letting the users pick the network stack they want. We do this for the kernel, boot loader, etc, so I don't understand why you feel we need council direction to make a similar change for the network manager. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
