[arch-dev-public] [signoff] net-tools-1.60.20110819cvs-1 and inetutils-1.8-4

[Eric Bélanger]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> 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 <d at falconindy.com> 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
>