-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2010 09:22 PM, 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 <willi...@gentoo.org> 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. > > William >
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. - -- 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyXO30ACgkQl5yvQNBFVTVhuQCbBG2owroUS8ZFko2oEE1ZIYgQ rZ0An19HgxWA9Ltat3owfIB5cvqjdRGE =YqFX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
