Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group

2014-06-16 Thread Eric Bélanger
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 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 > provi

Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group

2014-06-16 Thread Leonid Isaev
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 > To: arch-general@archlinux.org > Subject: Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64

Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group

2014-06-16 Thread Daniel Micay
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 hostnamec

[arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group

2014-06-16 Thread Leonid Isaev
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