Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-24 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh > > wrote: > > > > > > Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured > > >

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-22 Thread Marco d'Itri
On May 22, "Iain R. Learmonth" wrote: > What is the upstream source for the /etc/services file? Do we just I am... > maintain that in Debian or are updates incorporated from IANA and > unofficial port numbers? I do not use the official IANA list because it is huge and full of

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-22 Thread Iain R. Learmonth
Hi, On 22/05/16 10:00, Niko Tyni wrote: > Well, getservbyname(3) is used by 945 packages according to > codesearch.debian.net, and getprotobyname(3) by 551 packages. > Those use /etc/services and /etc/protocols by default AFAIK. > Doesn't seem that seldom to me? I'm probably doing it wrong, but

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-22 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:38:27AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > Hm, I did not expect that, but according to codesearch.debian.net you > are right. I'm actually stunned by the amount of programs that do > something like: > > struct protoent *pe = getprotobyname("TCP"); > int s =

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-22 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:00:37PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only > > contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just > > purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it > >

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-22 Thread Niko Tyni
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:01:05PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only > contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just > purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it > "necessary

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-21 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:08:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends? I don't see a reason either. About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-21 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 20.05.2016 um 21:08 schrieb Marco d'Itri: > Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends? I seems to have been a Depends in the past and was demoted to Recommends quite a while ago. Why it was added in the first place I can't seem to find in the debian changelog. Personally I don't

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-20 Thread Marco d'Itri
Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends? On May 20, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > netbase should not recommend ifupdown. Currently any package > depending on netbase will install ifupdown and a dhcp client if > recommends are installed, see [1]. > > As ifupdown

Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend ifupdown

2016-05-20 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Package: netbase Version: 5.3 Severity: normal netbase should not recommend ifupdown. Currently any package depending on netbase will install ifupdown and a dhcp client if recommends are installed, see [1]. As ifupdown is currently Priority: important (same as netbase), it will be installed in