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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:00 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

> On 08/29/2011 05:24 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
>> I'd like to remove:
>>
>> ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
>>
>> command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by very
>> very small minority of Fedora users.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> IIRC, you are upstream for this and could do this change upstream and
> then, there wouldn't be a debate about this here. Otherwise, make
> ddate a sub package and don't install it by default. Solved?
>
Acceptable to me, but is the extra metadata for another RPM worth the
space savings?

-J

> Rahul
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:16 PM
Gregory Maxwell
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>¬*Otherwise, ¬*make
> ddate a sub package and don't install it by default. ¬* Solved?

As an upstream the willingness of distributions to strip out commands
which I wanted to provide and don't offer a build option to disable
via sub-packaging will simply encourage me to pack more functionality
into single binaries that the distributions won't strip.

So I think Fedora shouldn't be more willing to strip ddate than it
would be willing to patch out ddate functionality if it were embedded
in 'hwclock'.

There is a reasonable argument that util-linux ought to go on a diet:
Right now it appears to take up 6424k on disk.

(Though, most of that is localizations‚ÄĒ and several of the various
NEWS/readme files it includes are bigger than ddate, as is its copy of
the GPL. This silly thread has probably taken up more disk space than
ddate, or it soon will)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:20 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

Once upon a time, Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> said:
> > On 08/29/2011 05:24 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> > IIRC, you are upstream for this and could do this change upstream and
> > then, there wouldn't be a debate about this here. Otherwise, make
> > ddate a sub package and don't install it by default. Solved?
> >
> Acceptable to me, but is the extra metadata for another RPM worth the
> space savings?

Is that why this is being done? Space savings? On my F15 system,
ddate, the README, and the manual pages account for 22k.

If space is the justification, there's lots of better places to start.
Why does util-linux have two floppy disk formatters (/usr/bin/floppy and
/usr/sbin/fdformat)? How many tools do we really need for partitioning
disks and managing partitions (util-linux has fdisk, sfdisk, cfdisk,
partx, blockdev, all with associated documentation)?

Note: I am NOT saying any of that should be removed. I'm just saying
that "space savings" as justification of removing ddate is stupid.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:20 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>¬*Otherwise, ¬*make
>> ddate a sub package and don't install it by default. ¬* Solved?
>
> As an upstream the willingness of distributions to strip out commands
> which I wanted to provide and don't offer a build option to disable
> via sub-packaging will simply encourage me to pack more functionality
> into single binaries that the distributions won't strip.
>
> So I think Fedora shouldn't be more willing to strip ddate than it
> would be willing to patch out ddate functionality if it were embedded
> in 'hwclock'.
>
> There is a reasonable argument that util-linux ought to go on a diet:
> Right now it appears to take up 6424k on disk.
>
> (Though, most of that is localizations‚?? and several of the various
> NEWS/readme files it includes are bigger than ddate, as is its copy of
> the GPL. This silly thread has probably taken up more disk space than
> ddate, or it soon will)

I think it has.

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:00 PM
Karel Zak
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made up
> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to break
> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or drop
> it, great.

That's simple, I'm upstream maintainer. The command has been disabled
by default in the last stable release. And yes, one I day I'll drop it...

> If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking for
> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
> rootkit.

- it's joke rather than anything useful
- it's installed on all systems, but almost nobody uses this crap

Karel

--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:03 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:

> >> The Julian and Gregorian calendars are also of religious origin.
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
> >
> > Do you find anything like in the "SEE ALSO" section of "man ddate" also
> > in "man date"?

> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made up
> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to break
> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or drop
> it, great. If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking for
> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
> rootkit.

With that point of view, it's probably impossible to convince you.
I won't try. I just encourage Karel to get rid of ddate somehow.

A "valid reason" IMO is to build a base distribution, a product -- our
product -- which does not consist of "extremely silly code" and which
does not advertise dubious religions. Not even with links as found in the
manual. There are several scenarios where we divert from upstream due
to various circumstances.

Whether it's harmful to distribute ddate, I don't know. Isn't it enough
reason to not offer something because it's considered silly/crazy crap?
Or if it doesn't make sense to ship it as part of a default OS environment?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#Discordian_calendar

| Most common Linux operating system-distributions have the command ddate
| to show the current Discordian date.

Strange people these Linux people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordian_calendar#Implementations

| ddate, a program that prints the current date in the Discordian calendar,
| is part of the util-linux package of basic system utilities.[6] As such,
| it is included in nearly all Linux distributions, despite some
| resistance.[7] There are many other programs with similar functionality.

-> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=149321
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:14 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

On 08/29/2011 05:00 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made up
>> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
>> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
>> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to break
>> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or drop
>> it, great.
>
> That's simple, I'm upstream maintainer. The command has been disabled
> by default in the last stable release. And yes, one I day I'll drop it...
>
>> If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
>> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking for
>> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
>> rootkit.
>
> - it's joke rather than anything useful
Then have upstream remove it from _their_ sources.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:25 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made
>> up
>> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
>> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
>> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to
>> break
>> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or
>> drop
>> it, great.
>
> That's simple, I'm upstream maintainer. The command has been disabled
> by default in the last stable release. And yes, one I day I'll drop it...
>
>> If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
>> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking
>> for
>> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
>> rootkit.
>
> - it's joke rather than anything useful
> - it's installed on all systems, but almost nobody uses this crap

Really? How do you know that?

-J

> Karel
>
> --
> Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
> http://karelzak.blogspot.com
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:27 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
>
>> >> The Julian and Gregorian calendars are also of religious origin.
>> >
>> > Apples and oranges.
>> >
>> > Do you find anything like in the "SEE ALSO" section of "man ddate"
>> also
>> > in "man date"?
>
>> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made
>> up
>> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
>> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
>> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to
>> break
>> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or
>> drop
>> it, great. If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
>> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking
>> for
>> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
>> rootkit.
>
> With that point of view, it's probably impossible to convince you.
> I won't try. I just encourage Karel to get rid of ddate somehow.
>
> A "valid reason" IMO is to build a base distribution, a product -- our
> product -- which does not consist of "extremely silly code" and which
> does not advertise dubious religions. Not even with links as found in the
> manual. There are several scenarios where we divert from upstream due
> to various circumstances.
>
Sure, for sufficient reasons.

> Whether it's harmful to distribute ddate, I don't know. Isn't it enough
> reason to not offer something because it's considered silly/crazy crap?
> Or if it doesn't make sense to ship it as part of a default OS
> environment?
>
I'm not suggesting ddate is mission-critical, I just want reasons for it's
removal or re-packaging to be well thought-out, not simply "gosh, I don't
sue that, so. . .". Otherwise we'll start dropping games.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#Discordian_calendar
>
> | Most common Linux operating system-distributions have the command ddate
> | to show the current Discordian date.
>
> Strange people these Linux people.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordian_calendar#Implementations
>
> | ddate, a program that prints the current date in the Discordian
> calendar,
> | is part of the util-linux package of basic system utilities.[6] As such,
> | it is included in nearly all Linux distributions, despite some
> | resistance.[7] There are many other programs with similar functionality.
>
> -> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=149321
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-29-2011, 04:09 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:27:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:

> I'm not suggesting ddate is mission-critical, I just want reasons for it's
> removal or re-packaging to be well thought-out, not simply "gosh, I don't
> sue that, so. . .". Otherwise we'll start dropping games.

Sure (and not limited to games, which are in optional packages, however).

We do that all the time, if a package maintainer no longer considers
a game (or package in general) worthwhile, and if nobody else volunteers
to take over a package. Of course, you're free to adapt as many orphans
as you like, whether actively maintained upstream or ancient.

Eventually, you'll be in the same situation, where you would like to
drop something, be it a completely optional package or a plugin[*] you
consider useless, close to useless, or just broken.[*] or a program
with alternative user-interfaces
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 PM.

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