FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-20-2010, 11:06 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default openrc stabilization update

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@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)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyXQCIACgkQnGSe5QXeB7tR2gCfeix45C4N1M FvHf864ReeavLn
xz8AoOUiUpwYb+Dan1LpmwhCHKdTO/nN
=fcQc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-20-2010, 01:37 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default 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
 
Old 09-20-2010, 02:06 PM
Eray Aslan
 
Default 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
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:41 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default 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
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:49 PM
Joshua Saddler
 
Default openrc stabilization update

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@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)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyXnpYACgkQxPWMzpKk6kNdZwCgrVN6D12Qza Hw5lXZl+h610PL
/ccAni2xDC+CWwkTw9GKBCvjT/IDqcj9
=RxdN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-20-2010, 06:32 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default 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
 
Old 09-20-2010, 06:34 PM
Tobias Klausmann
 
Default openrc stabilization update

Hi!

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Bhm wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@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
 
Old 09-20-2010, 06:47 PM
Antoni Grzymala
 
Default openrc stabilization update

Tobias Klausmann dixit (2010-09-20, 20:34):

> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Bhm wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@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]
 
Old 09-20-2010, 07:06 PM
Dale
 
Default 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

:-) :-)
 
Old 09-20-2010, 11:38 PM
"Anthony G. Basile"
 
Default openrc stabilization update

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/20/2010 02:32 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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

+1

I'm not even worried about documenting newnet. I just don't want it
thrown out of openrc. Leaving it in the background is fine.

- --
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/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyX8GMACgkQl5yvQNBFVTUFZgCdGbk0Irx9VJ UJqnGDcGjlSOcr
6sIAn2zaKI7gNa1q9qfyYzZgwX11a8/T
=r/Iw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:09 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org