Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/)
-   -   util-linux-2.22 new binaries - conflicts (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/688771-util-linux-2-22-new-binaries-conflicts.html)

Tom Gundersen 07-30-2012 12:48 AM

util-linux-2.22 new binaries - conflicts
 
Hi guys,

util-linux-2.22-rc1 is available, and I'm preparing for the final release.

A few binaries have been merged from other packages, so we need to
decide where we want to let them live

* /bin/kill has been merged from the procps-ng project. Opinions?
* /usr/bin/eject has been merged from the long-dead eject project. I
intend to drop the "eject" package and let util-linux provide this.
* /bin/su has been merged from coreutils. This is going to get
dropped from there so we want this, unless I'm mistaken?
* /sbin/sulogin, /usr/bin/last and /usr/bin/utmpdump have been merged
from sysvinit. This makes sense as we want those even when sysvinit is
not installed. Objections?
* /bin/wdctl and /usr/bin/lslocks appear to be new.

I threw up some packages, if people want to take them for a spin (note
that there will be file conflicts):
<https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-i686.pkg.tar.xz>
<https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz>

Cheers,

Tom

Allan McRae 07-30-2012 01:01 AM

util-linux-2.22 new binaries - conflicts
 
On 30/07/12 10:48, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> util-linux-2.22-rc1 is available, and I'm preparing for the final release.
>
> A few binaries have been merged from other packages, so we need to
> decide where we want to let them live
>
> * /bin/kill has been merged from the procps-ng project. Opinions?
> * /usr/bin/eject has been merged from the long-dead eject project. I
> intend to drop the "eject" package and let util-linux provide this.
> * /bin/su has been merged from coreutils. This is going to get
> dropped from there so we want this, unless I'm mistaken?

Yes.

> * /sbin/sulogin, /usr/bin/last and /usr/bin/utmpdump have been merged
> from sysvinit. This makes sense as we want those even when sysvinit is
> not installed. Objections?
> * /bin/wdctl and /usr/bin/lslocks appear to be new.
>
> I threw up some packages, if people want to take them for a spin (note
> that there will be file conflicts):
> <https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-i686.pkg.tar.xz>
> <https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
>

Dave Reisner 07-30-2012 01:15 AM

util-linux-2.22 new binaries - conflicts
 
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 02:48:41AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> util-linux-2.22-rc1 is available, and I'm preparing for the final release.
>
> A few binaries have been merged from other packages, so we need to
> decide where we want to let them live
>
> * /bin/kill has been merged from the procps-ng project. Opinions?

util-linux has always had its own kill implementation. It does have some
nice improvements over the procps code, including the ability to kill
processes by name. It also understands the RT signals by name and has
some advanced (optional) behavior with using sigqueue(2) instead of
kill(2). I'm in favor of using this, but I'm also fairly sure procps's
implementation isn't going anywhere. I recall there was some talk about
this in #util-linux, but I don't remember any specifics.

Fun fact: your shell provides a kill builtin so that it's able to
interact with controlled jobs. I suspect this is the kill "binary" that
gets used most often.

> * /usr/bin/eject has been merged from the long-dead eject project. I
> intend to drop the "eject" package and let util-linux provide this.

Yup, this is a no brainer.

> * /bin/su has been merged from coreutils. This is going to get
> dropped from there so we want this, unless I'm mistaken?

Yup, util-linux needs to provide this.

> * /sbin/sulogin, /usr/bin/last and /usr/bin/utmpdump have been merged
> from sysvinit. This makes sense as we want those even when sysvinit is
> not installed. Objections?

Nope, last was not merged. I'm in favor of using the other two so that
we're not init-dependent.

I propose we split sysvinit into the "init" pieces and the "tools" pieces,
similar to systemd{,-tools}. There's other binaries that have yet to be
merged, and I've heard requests for them recently. I don't know of any
timeline for merging these things, but I assume that we'll see some of
the more prominent sysvinit tools merged for 2.23.

> * /bin/wdctl and /usr/bin/lslocks appear to be new.

lslocks is a reimplementation of lslk, an ancient and deficient tool
which was given up on over a decade ago. It's fairly nifty.

> I threw up some packages, if people want to take them for a spin (note
> that there will be file conflicts):
> <https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-i686.pkg.tar.xz>
> <https://dev.archlinux.org/~tomegun/util-linux-2.22-0.1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

Tom Gundersen 07-30-2012 01:08 PM

util-linux-2.22 new binaries - conflicts
 
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 02:48:41AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> * /bin/kill has been merged from the procps-ng project. Opinions?
>
> util-linux has always had its own kill implementation. It does have some
> nice improvements over the procps code, including the ability to kill
> processes by name. It also understands the RT signals by name and has
> some advanced (optional) behavior with using sigqueue(2) instead of
> kill(2). I'm in favor of using this, but I'm also fairly sure procps's
> implementation isn't going anywhere. I recall there was some talk about
> this in #util-linux, but I don't remember any specifics.

Right. What happened is that util-linux' 'kill' is now enabled by
default. According to Karel systemd uses the RT stuff provided by
util-linux' kill, which is not available in procps'. Also, it might
make sense to move this to util-linux as it has nothing to do with
/proc.

>> * /sbin/sulogin, /usr/bin/last and /usr/bin/utmpdump have been merged
>> from sysvinit. This makes sense as we want those even when sysvinit is
>> not installed. Objections?
>
> Nope, last was not merged.

You are right. /usr/bin/last and also /usr/bin/mesg (which I missed
for some reason) are optionally provided by util-linux, so eventually
we should move them here from sysvinit I guess. However, we'd need to
check the compatibility first (this has not been done, and that's why
they are not enabled by default upstream). I'll leave these out.

-t


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.