On Sunday, September 19, 2010 21:22:06 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, 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. > > > > > > Do we want to switch the upstream repository to make oldnet the > > > default? > > > > > > What about newnet. ??Should we keep it at all? ??If we do, should we > > > put it behind a use flag which would be off by default? > > > > Is there any advantage to using newnet over oldnet? If there aren't > > any advantages, we should not attempt to support it (even as an > > optional feature). Old-net by default, no use-flag for newnet; people > > can use EXTRA_ECONF if they *really* want to use it. > > If I go this route, I'll probably just get rid of newnet in the next > release entirely. > > newnet is a single script, "network", which sets up all of the static > routes and static interfaces. > > It is small and simple, but the disadvantage of it is that you can't > stop/start a single interface.
i suggested in a previous thread that we depreciate "newnet" if not kill it off entirely. the "oldnet" stuff should become the default once again. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
