-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 ano
-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 t
-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 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> You're thinking wit
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 nuts
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, 14 Dec 2013 15:57:04 -0600
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 the new stage3 is the sum
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, 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 that
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
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 th
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:42:48 -0500
Rich Freeman 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, having net-misc/op
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
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 ma
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
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 shou
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 06:23 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski 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 ther
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski 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 suggestion that it might
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
> 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 wr
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
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
> stage3 on a devi
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 pul
-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
> 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 devic
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 kernel/bo
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
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 to use qemu to
-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
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
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
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
re
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, 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 all to handle their networking that's just ugly.
> I mean we could just have dhcpcd in @system and let people figure it
> out from th
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
-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 st
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
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 they
> wouldn't
-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]
> net-
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Ian Stakenvicius 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 of @wor
-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
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM
On 05/12/13 00:36, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs 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 wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> seem
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 Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Alan McKinnon 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
> the network.
A netwo
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 on
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 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
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 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
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
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 wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> seems li
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, 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
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 wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything useful ex
On 12/05/2013 05:30 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, 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
>>
>>
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 t
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM, William Hubbs 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 wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:46:36PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> >> seems like a virtual that wouldn't do anything u
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:30:30PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, 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-dis
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, 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
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 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" wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
On 12/02
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 k
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-mi
On 2013-12-03, at 6:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> I would like to add a virtual/network-manager package to @system which
>>> has the following rdepend settings:
>>>
>>> RDE
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:28PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 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/o
On 2013-12-03, at 4:11 PM, 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" wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 02/12/13 04:19 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wro
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:32:10PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" 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 Dec 3, 2013 1:24 AM, "Ian Stakenvicius" 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
-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
-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
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
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 ma
61 matches
Mail list logo
