On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >
