On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 14:34:41 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > Why is it bad if you have it installed but not running? FS#41834 as an example. Or FS#28819. There is just no good reason to keep dragging purely historic crap like inetutils on so many Arch systems just because a few common tools want `hostname`. > Or 4) submit upstream patches to make such programs first try to read > /proc/sys/kernel/hostname instead of shelling out, or invoke `uname -n` > rather than `hostname`. Yes, that's what I just added. ;-) However `cat /proc/sys/kernel/hostname` is even less portable than `hostname`. `uname -n` is defined by POSIX and thus preferred. A few upstreams already agreed on that. > The gettext thing seems like deep, dark magic, [...] I don't think we > should be relying on this level of indirection. It could be dropped at > any time. Yes, I realized that once looking deeper into the gettext implementation, it should not be relied on. If we really want a /usr/bin/hostname in base, better just make it a wrapper around `uname -n`. > Eventually we will have > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Alternatives and then > you could install your own preferred hostname implementation without > conflicts. It would not be unreasonable at that time to make packages > depend on a virtual provides for "hostname". Seems overkill for trivial utilities like hostname. It's not like switching between different JDK implementations or such. Geert -- geert.hendrickx.be :: geert@xxxxxxxxxxxx :: PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!
