Fair enough. nss:<foo> or nss_foo?
According to nsswitch.conf(5) this would include: aliases ethers group -> Covered by 'group' type hosts -> Covered by 'host' type netgroup networks passwd -> Covered by 'user' type protocols publickey rpc services -> The one we want to cover shadow -> Covered by 'user' type So, if this logic holds, would we need to rename/alias the 'host' type to nss_host? It's not a horrible idea so long as it's a full version deprecation. It would add consistency and tell you more concretely what you're actually configuring. For instance, if some crazy person decides to create a full BIND type then you would have another 'host' scope in there. Trevor On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Oliver <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 March 2011 21:17, Trevor Vaughan <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not sure if it's that easy. >> >> In Fedora, at least, network materials are grouped into the >> 'initscripts' package and items such as /etc/hosts and /etc/services >> are in the 'setup' package. >> >> You almost would need a LSB category to give these a really broad >> header (where applicable). >> >> I'm not sure if that's a good idea though. >> >> Perhaps: etc_services, etc_hosts , etc_networks etc...? >> >> It's based on where they live but that seems to be more consistent >> than anything else. > > I can't speak for Fedora's packaging, but my impression is that these > files are all ultimately serving the name service, configured via > /etc/nsswitch.conf and thus part of GNU libc. The absence of any of > these files due to packaging differences should be irrelevant, since > they (AFAIK) are all default choices of the name service switch > config, and hence have the same basic format. > >> >> Trevor >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Oliver Hookins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 31, 4:45 pm, Jacob Helwig <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:16:31 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >>>> >>>> > I don't like 'port', but I'm having a hard time coming up with a good >>>> > alternate. >>>> >>>> > sys_service? >>>> >>>> > The man page says "The Internet network services list" so perhaps >>>> > net_svc or net_service? >>>> >>>> network_service, or net_service are currently the leading candidates in >>>> my mind, for what it's worth. >>> >>> I don't mean to muddy the water (especially as I'm only joining the >>> thread very late in the game), but shouldn't this be grouped under the >>> more general heading of name service? That is to say, the files-style >>> databases that are in the same format between protocols, services, >>> ethers and rpc. >>> >>> By extension, shouldn't such a generic type/provider support all of >>> these databases and be able to store values in any of them? >>> >>> To be completely accurate in this abstraction, technically /etc/hosts >>> would also be covered (and /etc/networks). Is this all a fair call or >>> is this a debate best saved for another day? >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jacob Helwig >>>> >>>> signature.asc >>>> < 1KViewDownload >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Puppet Developers" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Trevor Vaughan >> Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc >> (410) 541-6699 >> [email protected] >> >> -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- >> > -- Trevor Vaughan Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc (410) 541-6699 [email protected] -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
