[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-dev
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: oldnet scripts splitting out from OpenRC
From: Carlos Silva <r3pek () r3pek ! org>
Date: 2013-04-25 22:51:01
Message-ID: CA+ZvHYEFOumUihu6ZPsN23HGdieZ1fHWf035H6qxve8bZ072kQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
Maybe I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of ways to
have gentoo *running* in a box without it having network connection. The
thing is that makes like 0.01% of the total installs. It's not a default
install, it isn't on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one,
but I really don't consider that an installation), and most importantly,
AFAIK, it's not something any John Doe would do. Offline installations and
"runtimes" are for geeks that use linux for a long time and know how the
system work and have the knowledge to build a stage4 or chroot and move it
to another box. It's not something technically difficult for us "geeks",
but would take ages for some non-geek to do it.
Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do something to
his box other that "pacman <something>" (yeah, he's on arch) and he's using
linux for some time now.
The bottom line here is, does @system have to have virtual/network-provider?
- Yes -> Make it RDEPEND;
- No -> don't care and just set some use flags.
The question above is more a political one than technical. Everyone here
knows that a system doesn't have to have networking support for it to boot,
we can't even guarantee that networking support is in the kernel (at least
I don't see it using kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default meaning
that 99% or more of the people will use or *need* it? <--- political
Sorry if I was too long on this :)
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:1i5t5.duncan@cox.net" \
target="_blank">1i5t5.duncan@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div \
class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><snip><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Maybe \
I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of ways to have gentoo \
*running* in a box without it having network connection. The thing is that makes like \
0.01% of the total installs. It's not a default install, it isn't on any \
gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one, but I really don't consider that \
an installation), and most importantly, AFAIK, it's not something any John Doe \
would do. Offline installations and "runtimes" are for geeks that use linux \
for a long time and know how the system work and have the knowledge to build a stage4 \
or chroot and move it to another box. It's not something technically difficult \
for us "geeks", but would take ages for some non-geek to do it.</div>
<div style>Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do something to \
his box other that "pacman <something>" (yeah, he's on arch) and \
he's using linux for some time now.<br></div><div style>
<br></div><div style>The bottom line here is, does @system have to have \
virtual/network-provider?</div><div style>- Yes -> Make it RDEPEND;</div><div \
style>- No -> don't care and just set some use flags.</div></div>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>The question above is more a political one \
than technical. Everyone here knows that a system doesn't have to have networking \
support for it to boot, we can't even guarantee that networking support is in the \
kernel (at least I don't see it using kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default \
meaning that 99% or more of the people will use or *need* it? <--- political</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Sorry if I \
was too long on this :)</div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic