[arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group
Hi, Is there a reason why core/inetutils is in base group, i.e. which packages implicitly rely on it? It was added to base around Aug. 2011 ago, I think because of hostname(1), but shouldn't this functionality be now provided by hostnamectl? Thanks, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
On 16/06/14 07:35 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
Hi,
Is there a reason why core/inetutils is in base group, i.e. which packages implicitly rely on it? It was added to base around Aug. 2011 ago, I think because of hostname(1), but shouldn't this functionality be now provided by hostnamectl?
Thanks,
It's likely just in base because it was viewed as convenient. You can temporarily change the hostname with `sysctl kernel.hostname=foo` alone anyway. AFAIK it's a bug if there's an implicit dependency on base, although it's not clear if an implicit make dependency on base is allowed as it is for base-devel. It would be nice if that was spelled out clearly instead of left up to community documentation on the wiki.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:31:42PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0400 From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> To: arch-general@archlinux.org Subject: Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
On 16/06/14 07:35 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
Hi,
Is there a reason why core/inetutils is in base group, i.e. which packages implicitly rely on it? It was added to base around Aug. 2011 ago, I think because of hostname(1), but shouldn't this functionality be now provided by hostnamectl?
Thanks,
It's likely just in base because it was viewed as convenient. You can temporarily change the hostname with `sysctl kernel.hostname=foo` alone anyway.
Yes, but the hostname binary may be queried by scripts, like startx.
AFAIK it's a bug if there's an implicit dependency on base, although it's not clear if an implicit make dependency on base is allowed as it is for base-devel.
I thinks so, and this seems convenient. Otherwise everything should depend on glibc, for example. This implicit behavior is the reason why base should be small. Hence my question... Sincerely, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
Hi,
Is there a reason why core/inetutils is in base group, i.e. which packages implicitly rely on it? It was added to base around Aug. 2011 ago, I think because of hostname(1), but shouldn't this functionality be now provided by hostnamectl?
Many packages/tools expect the presence of a hostname binary. A symlink to hostnamectl won't work because the output format/information is different.
Thanks, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
participants (3)
-
Daniel Micay
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Leonid Isaev