On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:18:02PM -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Dave Reisner 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. First of what could be many: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25681 dave

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dave Reisner 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 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

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger 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

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Eric Bélanger wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger 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

On 04/10/11 09:54, Eric Bélanger wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Eric Bélanger wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Eric Bélanger 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?

Signoff i686, Allan