[arch-dev-public] Updating base /etc files
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out. The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck. Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package. We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194 I would also like to suggest one more file be updated, but am unsure if it should be part of the filesystem package: /etc/mailcap mailcap is actually really useful for things like firefox, which falls back to there if some of those goofy gnome services aren't running (I don't use them, so it cripples firefox here unless I use a ~/.mailcap) There is a huge problem with this, though, and that would be the fact that we'd have to add/remove entries to it to do things successfully... however, if we don't want to do this, we could at least provide entries for all out base packages (for instance, less and tar). - Aaron
On 4/1/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
If they're better, go for it.
I would also like to suggest one more file be updated, but am unsure if it should be part of the filesystem package: /etc/mailcap
mailcap is actually really useful for things like firefox, which falls back to there if some of those goofy gnome services aren't running (I don't use them, so it cripples firefox here unless I use a ~/.mailcap)
And mailcap is a bit goofy as it's provided by a few things, mutt always comes up with a file conflict when installed for example. We could take the netbsd ones and package them separately. The new network scripts i've been working on have been seperated from the initscripts package. How about we name the package 'network' and include these files with it? I'll have the network scripts up in a SCM during the next week, im just tidying them and applying some patches now so they're ready to go up. James -- iphitus // Arch Developer // kernel26beyond // iphitus.loudas.com
2007/4/1, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
I would also like to suggest one more file be updated, but am unsure if it should be part of the filesystem package: /etc/mailcap
mailcap is actually really useful for things like firefox, which falls back to there if some of those goofy gnome services aren't running (I don't use them, so it cripples firefox here unless I use a ~/.mailcap)
There is a huge problem with this, though, and that would be the fact that we'd have to add/remove entries to it to do things successfully... however, if we don't want to do this, we could at least provide entries for all out base packages (for instance, less and tar).
While we're on it, I thinks this could be done too: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/4766#comment10118 -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:17:21 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
+1
I would also like to suggest one more file be updated, but am unsure if it should be part of the filesystem package: /etc/mailcap
mailcap is actually really useful for things like firefox, which falls back to there if some of those goofy gnome services aren't running (I don't use them, so it cripples firefox here unless I use a ~/.mailcap)
There is a huge problem with this, though, and that would be the fact that we'd have to add/remove entries to it to do things successfully... however, if we don't want to do this, we could at least provide entries for all out base packages (for instance, less and tar).
Yeah, I'm interested in how other distros handle mailcap. I'm sure Debian has some sort of alternatives mailcap handling. Jason
On 3/31/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
mailcap aside, I've made some package changes. see here (pacman 3 only) [phrak] Server = http://archlinux.org/~aaron/repo/ Updates: filesystem * added /etc/protocols and /etc/services * added empty /srv dir * removed package specific skel files (bash and xinitrc, etc) bash * updated to patchlevel 15 * added the patch level to the version number * added skel files for bashrc and bash_profile iputils * upgraded to 20070202 * added in the 'traceroute' package * SUID ping, ping6, traceroute, traceroute6 Still pending, related to these changes: * move skel xinitrc and xsession to xorg-xinitrc * move /etc/profile from bash to filesystem * remove PS1 from /etc/profile Lemme know if I covered it all.
On 4/3/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
mailcap aside, I've made some package changes.
see here (pacman 3 only) [phrak] Server = http://archlinux.org/~aaron/repo/
Updates: filesystem * added /etc/protocols and /etc/services * added empty /srv dir * removed package specific skel files (bash and xinitrc, etc) bash * updated to patchlevel 15 * added the patch level to the version number * added skel files for bashrc and bash_profile iputils * upgraded to 20070202 * added in the 'traceroute' package * SUID ping, ping6, traceroute, traceroute6
Still pending, related to these changes: * move skel xinitrc and xsession to xorg-xinitrc * move /etc/profile from bash to filesystem * remove PS1 from /etc/profile
Lemme know if I covered it all.
Another one. Global message functions for use in arch scripts.... I'd like to propose the following, for /usr/lib/archlinux/functions #!/bin/sh . /etc/rc.conf if [ "$USECOLOR" = "YES" -o "$USECOLOR" = "yes" ]; then C_WARN="\033[1;33m" # warning C_ERROR="\033[1;31m" # error C_MSG="\033[1;32m" # message prefix C_PLAIN="\033[1;1m" # plain text C_CLEAR="\033[1;0m" fi normal() { echo -e " $1" } plain() { echo -e " $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" } msg() { echo -e "$C_MSG==>$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" } warning() { echo -e "$C_WARN==> WARNING:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 } error() { echo -e "$C_ERROR==> ERROR:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 } #### TESTING ### plain "hello there, this is plain" msg "this is a message" normal "this text is just normal" warning "danger will robinson!" error "you're doing it wrong!"
On 4/4/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
mailcap aside, I've made some package changes.
see here (pacman 3 only) [phrak] Server = http://archlinux.org/~aaron/repo/
Updates: filesystem * added /etc/protocols and /etc/services * added empty /srv dir * removed package specific skel files (bash and xinitrc, etc) bash * updated to patchlevel 15 * added the patch level to the version number * added skel files for bashrc and bash_profile iputils * upgraded to 20070202 * added in the 'traceroute' package * SUID ping, ping6, traceroute, traceroute6
Still pending, related to these changes: * move skel xinitrc and xsession to xorg-xinitrc * move /etc/profile from bash to filesystem * remove PS1 from /etc/profile
Lemme know if I covered it all.
Another one. Global message functions for use in arch scripts.... I'd like to propose the following, for /usr/lib/archlinux/functions
#!/bin/sh
. /etc/rc.conf
if [ "$USECOLOR" = "YES" -o "$USECOLOR" = "yes" ]; then C_WARN="\033[1;33m" # warning C_ERROR="\033[1;31m" # error C_MSG="\033[1;32m" # message prefix C_PLAIN="\033[1;1m" # plain text
C_CLEAR="\033[1;0m" fi
normal() { echo -e " $1" } plain() { echo -e " $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" }
msg() { echo -e "$C_MSG==>$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" } warning() { echo -e "$C_WARN==> WARNING:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 } error() { echo -e "$C_ERROR==> ERROR:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 }
#### TESTING ###
plain "hello there, this is plain" msg "this is a message" normal "this text is just normal" warning "danger will robinson!" error "you're doing it wrong!"
just remember, can't move /etc/rc.d/functions to there, as some people have /usr/ on another partition. James -- iphitus // Arch Developer // kernel26beyond // iphitus.loudas.com
On 4/3/07, James <iphitus@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/3/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is split from the "iputils and traceroute" discussion on arch-dev, moving it to the public list, and splitting things out.
The issue is that our stock /etc/services and /etc/protocols files suck.
Here's what I'd like to do - rip these files out of the iputils package and stick them in the 'filesystem' package.
We can then grab updated files from NetBSD: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/etc/ As proposed in this bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6194
mailcap aside, I've made some package changes.
see here (pacman 3 only) [phrak] Server = http://archlinux.org/~aaron/repo/
Updates: filesystem * added /etc/protocols and /etc/services * added empty /srv dir * removed package specific skel files (bash and xinitrc, etc) bash * updated to patchlevel 15 * added the patch level to the version number * added skel files for bashrc and bash_profile iputils * upgraded to 20070202 * added in the 'traceroute' package * SUID ping, ping6, traceroute, traceroute6
Still pending, related to these changes: * move skel xinitrc and xsession to xorg-xinitrc * move /etc/profile from bash to filesystem * remove PS1 from /etc/profile
Lemme know if I covered it all.
Another one. Global message functions for use in arch scripts.... I'd like to propose the following, for /usr/lib/archlinux/functions
#!/bin/sh
. /etc/rc.conf
if [ "$USECOLOR" = "YES" -o "$USECOLOR" = "yes" ]; then C_WARN="\033[1;33m" # warning C_ERROR="\033[1;31m" # error C_MSG="\033[1;32m" # message prefix C_PLAIN="\033[1;1m" # plain text
C_CLEAR="\033[1;0m" fi
normal() { echo -e " $1" } plain() { echo -e " $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" }
msg() { echo -e "$C_MSG==>$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" } warning() { echo -e "$C_WARN==> WARNING:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 } error() { echo -e "$C_ERROR==> ERROR:$C_CLEAR $C_PLAIN$1$C_CLEAR" >&2 }
#### TESTING ###
plain "hello there, this is plain" msg "this is a message" normal "this text is just normal" warning "danger will robinson!" error "you're doing it wrong!"
just remember, can't move /etc/rc.d/functions to there, as some people have /usr/ on another partition.
Yes, I am aware. That's why those functions are not included there. The functions in this file are for scripts like: makepkg, srcpac, etc etc - any bash script we have that needs output, so we get a unified "feel" to our scripts.
2007/4/4, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
just remember, can't move /etc/rc.d/functions to there, as some people have /usr/ on another partition.
Yes, I am aware. That's why those functions are not included there. The functions in this file are for scripts like: makepkg, srcpac, etc etc - any bash script we have that needs output, so we get a unified "feel" to our scripts.
Why not just merge it with /etc/rc.d/functions and use common scheme for makepkg/etc scripts and initscripts? Cosmetical note: IMHO "==> " is too big and not very good-looking prefix. I'd like ":: " or ">> " more. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 4/4/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/4/4, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
just remember, can't move /etc/rc.d/functions to there, as some people have /usr/ on another partition.
Yes, I am aware. That's why those functions are not included there. The functions in this file are for scripts like: makepkg, srcpac, etc etc - any bash script we have that needs output, so we get a unified "feel" to our scripts.
Why not just merge it with /etc/rc.d/functions and use common scheme for makepkg/etc scripts and initscripts?
Cosmetical note: IMHO "==> " is too big and not very good-looking prefix. I'd like ":: " or ">> " more.
Another cosmetic thing.... make it /usr/lib/arch (no linux), just to be generic, and possibly drop it to /lib.... I don't see any harm in it being there. i hope to further seperate the networking core out of the networking scripts so it contains sourceable functions that any script can use. Currently it's seperate, but because of issues in bash, it isnt sourceable. This could also be included in /lib/arch. James -- iphitus // Arch Developer // kernel26beyond // iphitus.loudas.com
On 4/4/07, James <iphitus@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/4/4, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
just remember, can't move /etc/rc.d/functions to there, as some people have /usr/ on another partition.
Yes, I am aware. That's why those functions are not included there. The functions in this file are for scripts like: makepkg, srcpac, etc etc - any bash script we have that needs output, so we get a unified "feel" to our scripts.
Why not just merge it with /etc/rc.d/functions and use common scheme for makepkg/etc scripts and initscripts?
Cosmetical note: IMHO "==> " is too big and not very good-looking prefix. I'd like ":: " or ">> " more.
Another cosmetic thing.... make it /usr/lib/arch (no linux), just to be generic, and possibly drop it to /lib.... I don't see any harm in it being there.
i hope to further seperate the networking core out of the networking scripts so it contains sourceable functions that any script can use. Currently it's seperate, but because of issues in bash, it isnt sourceable. This could also be included in /lib/arch.
Ok, I'm going to hold off on the common scripts for now - would anyone mind if I updated the 3 packages as proposed in the original email?
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
James
-
Jason Chu
-
Roman Kyrylych