Josh Saddler wrote:
Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or
ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a "stable" configuration (i.e. as
"final" as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side
updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users.
Just to clarify - net.lo and friends, along with bash specific configs
are NOT going away. They're just not actively being developed with new
features, nor will they get priority for any fixes. However, net.lo nor
the modules are installed by default (MKOLDNET=yes is required).
So existing documentation works just fine.
Also, writing documentation to support things like ADSL and PPP now
entirely depends on upstream working with new stuff. For example,
wpa_supplicant does not react by itself to hotplugged interfaces and the
new OpenRC network script no longer supports per interface
start/stops. This is a problem, and I've spent some time working on
patches to wpa_supplicant for this, but upstream is not sure about the
whole idea.
If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in
new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power
to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our
users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features,
sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble
trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not
add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that.
Development on OpenRC has slowed down a lot of late, mainly as most of
my goals of where it should go have now been met. And with moving
networking to a very simple script, future changes will only be on a per
init script basis. As OpenRC just supplies enough init scripts to boot a
basic system any future changes will be in the init scripts themselves
and thus removed from OpenRC specific documentation.
Of course that doesn't stop various upstreams that Gentoo uses from
totally changing their user interface.
Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We
already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying
out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation.
We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new
openrc/baselayout release.
You could always try writing the code instead ;)
Thanks
Roy
