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?