| Summary: | Handbook:Parts/Installation/System - Drop Gentoo net.* scripts in favour of dhcpcd | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [OLD] Docs on www.gentoo.org | Reporter: | charles17 |
| Component: | Installation Handbook | Assignee: | Docs Team <docs-team> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | fedja, gabemarcano, jmbsvicetto, kfm, roy |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Parts/Installation/System#Configuring_the_network | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | example /etc/init.d/interfaces | ||
|
Description
charles17
2015-01-05 09:39:57 UTC
getting rid of netifrc? Yes. introducing something new? No. How about Gentoo drops these "daemons", "config scripts", "network managers", etc in favor of simple command dumps in a custom init script? Disadvantages: - none. Advantages: - people will learn to use iproute2 and associated network administration commands - testing configuration (in terminal) can simply be dumped into an init script, no conversion to netifrc or such needed. - people will learn how to write init scripts - there will be less cruft on disk (I think netifrc was around 150 KB or so last time I checked) - there are no limits to how complex your configuration can get - you can use experimental networking that these so-called network managers/config scripts do not support (openvswitch?) Created attachment 393228 [details]
example /etc/init.d/interfaces
OpenRC already has such a script where you are encouraged to do this https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/blob/master/init.d/network.in I don't think it's actually installed though. (In reply to Roy Marples from comment #3) > OpenRC already has such a script where you are encouraged to do this > https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/blob/master/init.d/network.in > > I don't think it's actually installed though. You are correct, but this would be easy to change. (In reply to charles17 from comment #0) > Gentoo net.* scripts aka net-misc/netifrc seems too complex for newcomers as > it often leads to questions in the forums. > > There is dhcpcd as an alternative which is much easier to set up and > sufficient for most installations. It is already documented in > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Network_management_using_DHCPCD I run dhcpcd this way myself using a static ip address. > Proposal is making this the standard network setup and offering Gentoo net.* > scripts as an alternative for special demand. This would be more than a documentation change; we would need to update the installation cd's and stages first, so there would need to be discussion about doing that. I personally would support making dhcpcd the default. (In reply to William Hubbs from comment #4) > [...] > (In reply to charles17 from comment #0) > > This would be more than a documentation change; we would need to update the > installation cd's and stages first, so there would need to be discussion > about doing that. > I am not asking for changes in section »Installation/Networking«. The section I mean is »Installation/System#Configuring_the_network«. There we are in the chrooted environment using network access from installation media. From here everybody could use the dhcpcd setup. I've done that change in the inofficial https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Complete_Handbook/Configuring_the_system William just linked me to this bug report. As someone that deals with network configs a bit more complex than simple dhcp clients (desktops / laptops), I strongly oppose "masking", hiding or removing netifrc package or examples as those are very important to anyone that needs more than just dhcp. About the scripts seeming too complex, that was not my impression when I started using them 10 years ago. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > William just linked me to this bug report. > As someone that deals with network configs a bit more complex than simple > dhcp clients (desktops / laptops), I strongly oppose "masking", hiding or > removing netifrc package or examples as those are very important to anyone > that needs more than just dhcp. I think all he is saying is, netifrc should be an *option* and not the default way we tell people to configure their systems. The last time I checked the handbook, it tells you to use netifrc to set things up. I think he is just suggesting that we not pull in netifrc by default and we tell people to emerge it if they want it, the same way we tell them to emerge a cron daemon, syslogger, etc. I would support this, because I agree that netifrc isn't needed by default. (In reply to William Hubbs from comment #7) > > [...] > I think all he is saying is, netifrc should be an *option* and not the > default way we tell people to configure their systems. The last time I > checked the handbook, it tells you to use netifrc to set things up. That's what I mean. Keep the handbook free from scripts that many (most?) users would never need. > > I think he is just suggesting that we not pull in netifrc by default and we > tell people to emerge it if they want it, the same way we tell them to > emerge a cron daemon, syslogger, etc. Yes. Offer netifrc as an optional highly sophisticated tool for those who need it. > > I would support this, because I agree that netifrc isn't needed by default. Who else is needed to support this request? How is the procedure? (In reply to William Hubbs from comment #7) > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > > William just linked me to this bug report. > > As someone that deals with network configs a bit more complex than simple > > dhcp clients (desktops / laptops), I strongly oppose "masking", hiding or > > removing netifrc package or examples as those are very important to anyone > > that needs more than just dhcp. > > I think all he is saying is, netifrc should be an *option* and not the > default way we tell people to configure their systems. The last time I > checked the handbook, it tells you to use netifrc to set things up. > > I think he is just suggesting that we not pull in netifrc by default and we > tell people to emerge it if they want it, the same way we tell them to > emerge a cron daemon, syslogger, etc. > > I would support this, because I agree that netifrc isn't needed by default. I have no plans of dropping netifrc from stage3 or from the CDs - to me that would be a disservice to our users. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #9) > [...] > I have no plans of dropping netifrc from stage3 or from the CDs - to me that > would be a disservice to our users. Nobody is asking to drop netifrc from stage3 or CDs. This bug is about Handbook only. please use the "discussion" tab on the wiki pages if you have suggestions, rather than filing bugs on bugzilla. |
