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 <danielmicay@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] inetutils and the 'base' group
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/24.6.0
>
> 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 hostnamectl?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> It's likely just in base because it was viewed as convenient. You can
> temporarily change the hostname with `sysctl kernel.hostname=foo` alone
> anyway.
Yes, but the hostname binary may be queried by scripts, like startx.
>
> AFAIK it's a bug if there's an implicit dependency on base, although
> it's not clear if an implicit make dependency on base is allowed as it
> is for base-devel.
I thinks so, and this seems convenient. Otherwise everything should depend on
glibc, for example. This implicit behavior is the reason why base should be
small. Hence my question...
Sincerely,
--
Leonid Isaev
GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4
C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
pgp0INci_OUR2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
