[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">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:1i5t5.duncan@cox.net" target="_blank">1i5t5.duncan@cox.net</a>&gt;</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">&lt;snip&gt;<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&#39;s not a default \
install, it isn&#39;t on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one, but I really don&#39;t \
consider that an installation), and most importantly, AFAIK, it&#39;s not something any John Doe would \
do. Offline installations and &quot;runtimes&quot; 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&#39;s not something technically difficult for us &quot;geeks&quot;, 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 \
&quot;pacman &lt;something&gt;&quot; (yeah, he&#39;s on arch) and he&#39;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 -&gt; Make it RDEPEND;</div><div style>- No -&gt; \
don&#39;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&#39;t have to have networking support for it to boot, we \
can&#39;t even guarantee that networking support is in the kernel (at least I don&#39;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? \
&lt;--- 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]