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 > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-19-2011, 09:29 PM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

Hi,

Following discussions between a few of us on IRC and private emails,
we decided to remove the hostname binary from the net-tools package
and to replace it by the one from inetutils. Unlike the hostname from
coreutils, the inetutils hostname has all the functionnality of the
net-tools' one. I've also added scripts which implements the behaviour
of the domainname and dnsdomainname symlinks that were in the
net-tools package so everything should work as before. If not, let us
know. I've also added inetutils to the base group as many apps expect
hostname to be installed (I think its also a standard).

The net-tools package also had other changes as followed:

- update to current upstream cvs
- remove hostname (and the symlinks to it, dnsdomain and domainname)
as well as manpages related to it
- changed license to gpl2
- removed !makeflags from options (seems to work fine without it,
except for some extra compile time warnings).



Eric
 
Old 08-19-2011, 10:18 PM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:29:06PM -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following discussions between a few of us on IRC and private emails,
>> we decided to remove the hostname binary from the net-tools package
>> and to replace it by the one from inetutils. Unlike the hostname from
>> coreutils, the inetutils hostname has all the functionnality of the
>> net-tools' one. I've also added scripts which implements the behaviour
>> of the *domainname and dnsdomainname symlinks that were in the
>> net-tools package so everything should work as before. If not, let us
>> know. I've also added inetutils to the base group as many apps expect
>> hostname to be installed (I think its also a standard).
>>
>> The net-tools package also had other changes as followed:
>>
>> - update to current upstream cvs
>> - remove hostname (and the symlinks to it, dnsdomain and domainname)
>> as well as manpages related to it
>> - changed license to gpl2
>> - removed !makeflags from options (seems to work fine without it,
>> except for some extra compile time warnings).
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>
> Two minor nitpicks about the wrapper scripts:
>
> 1) It would probably be worthwhile to hardcode the path to the inetutils
> hostname binary.
> 2) exec $path/hostname, in both cases, will save an extra fork in invocation.
>
> Also, do we want to add manpage symlinks for {dns,}domainname? It's not
> entirely the truth, so I'm not convinced we want this.
>
> dave
>

I could do these 2 changes to the scripts. The current net-tools in
core has {dns,}domainname man pages symlinks to hostname so I guess we
might as well add them. I'll wait for more opinions before doing these
changes in case there's another issue.

Eric
 
Old 08-20-2011, 11:42 AM
Ronald van Haren
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
>
> First of what could be many: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25681
>
> dave
>

Fixed in the new wicd package in testing. Wicd parses the output of
ifconfig directly to detect the ip address, which failed because the
output is slightly different now with the new net-tools package.

Ronald
 
Old 09-26-2011, 05:00 PM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:18:02PM -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:29:06PM -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Following discussions between a few of us on IRC and private emails,
>> >> we decided to remove the hostname binary from the net-tools package
>> >> and to replace it by the one from inetutils. Unlike the hostname from
>> >> coreutils, the inetutils hostname has all the functionnality of the
>> >> net-tools' one. I've also added scripts which implements the behaviour
>> >> of the *domainname and dnsdomainname symlinks that were in the
>> >> net-tools package so everything should work as before. If not, let us
>> >> know. I've also added inetutils to the base group as many apps expect
>> >> hostname to be installed (I think its also a standard).
>> >>
>> >> The net-tools package also had other changes as followed:
>> >>
>> >> - update to current upstream cvs
>> >> - remove hostname (and the symlinks to it, dnsdomain and domainname)
>> >> as well as manpages related to it
>> >> - changed license to gpl2
>> >> - removed !makeflags from options (seems to work fine without it,
>> >> except for some extra compile time warnings).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>> >
>> > Two minor nitpicks about the wrapper scripts:
>> >
>> > 1) It would probably be worthwhile to hardcode the path to the inetutils
>> > hostname binary.
>> > 2) exec $path/hostname, in both cases, will save an extra fork in invocation.
>> >
>> > Also, do we want to add manpage symlinks for {dns,}domainname? It's not
>> > entirely the truth, so I'm not convinced we want this.
>> >
>> > dave
>> >
>>
>> I could do these 2 changes to the scripts. *The current net-tools in
>> core has {dns,}domainname man pages symlinks to hostname so I guess we
>> might as well add them. I'll wait for more opinions before doing these
>> changes in case there's another issue.
>>
>> Eric
>
> I'm also a little curious what happened to the whole idea of having a
> 'hostname' provider. We've (again) broken all tools that quietly depend
> on a hostname binary and were "fixed" to depend on net-tools.
>

It's been a while but are we doing the hostname provider idea? I would
like to know before doing the 2 proposed changes for inetutils and
asking for signoffs so we can move this out of testing.


> First of what could be many: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25681
>
> dave
>
 
Old 09-26-2011, 05:07 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been a while but are we doing the hostname provider idea?

I don't have a strong opinion, but the provider makes sense to me.
Especially as there are many possible providers of hostname, and we
might change our minds about who provides it again in the future (none
of the options are especially nice imho)...

I think someone objected to the idea on irc though, which is why I
stopped pushing it.

-t
 
Old 09-29-2011, 01:35 AM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's been a while but are we doing the hostname provider idea?
>
> I don't have a strong opinion, but the provider makes sense to me.
> Especially as there are many possible providers of hostname, and we
> might change our minds about who provides it again in the future (none
> of the options are especially nice imho)...
>
> I think someone objected to the idea on irc though, which is why I
> stopped pushing it.
>
> -t
>

Since no-one seems very interested in the provider idea, I decided not
to implement it.

I just pushed inetutils-1.8-5 in testing with these changes:

- Add full path and exec in domainname and dnsdomainname scripts
- Add man page symlinks for domainname and dnsdomainname

Please test and signoff.

Eric
 
Old 09-29-2011, 02:58 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's been a while but are we doing the hostname provider idea?
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion, but the provider makes sense to me.
>> Especially as there are many possible providers of hostname, and we
>> might change our minds about who provides it again in the future (none
>> of the options are especially nice imho)...
>>
>> I think someone objected to the idea on irc though, which is why I
>> stopped pushing it.
>>
>> -t
>>
>
> Since no-one seems very interested in the provider idea, I decided not
> to implement it.
>
> I just pushed inetutils-1.8-5 in testing with these changes:
>
> - Add full path and exec in domainname and dnsdomainname scripts
> - Add man page symlinks for domainname and dnsdomainname
>
> Please test and signoff.

signoff x86_64

-t
 
Old 10-03-2011, 11:54 PM
Eric Bélanger
 
Default net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's been a while but are we doing the hostname provider idea?
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion, but the provider makes sense to me.
>>> Especially as there are many possible providers of hostname, and we
>>> might change our minds about who provides it again in the future (none
>>> of the options are especially nice imho)...
>>>
>>> I think someone objected to the idea on irc though, which is why I
>>> stopped pushing it.
>>>
>>> -t
>>>
>>
>> Since no-one seems very interested in the provider idea, I decided not
>> to implement it.
>>
>> I just pushed inetutils-1.8-5 in testing with these changes:
>>
>> - Add full path and exec in domainname and dnsdomainname scripts
>> - Add man page symlinks for domainname and dnsdomainname
>>
>> Please test and signoff.
>
> signoff x86_64
>
> -t
>

Anyone for i686?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 AM.

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