[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug in hostname

From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: bug in hostname
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:37:35 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> Paul Jarc wrote:
> > The GNU(/Hurd) system will need a hostname program, so throwing away
> > this one may not be a great idea.  Adding the -s and --fqdn options to
> > GNU hostname might make the most sense.  C.f. the GNU sysutils
> > project, intended to replace util-linux.

I am confused by the politics here and since I have no tact I will
just barge in with the question and let the embarrassment flow later.

Why can't GNU/Hurd use the code from the net-tools package?  Or maybe
a better question is why wouldn't Hurd use the net-tools package since
it has all of the features which people seem to desire and more?  It
is free software released under the GPL.  Why would Hurd feel the need
to have different software?  Is it only because net-tools were not
created specifically for the GNU project?  Is this a NIH (not invented
here) problem?  (Paul I am not singling you out personally.  I have
always found your comments insightful.  Please educate me.)

> Imagine case of people having some non-linux/freebsd os. like Tru64Unix or
> Irix. Sometimes it's advantageous to have GNU utilities, imagine find(1),
> (ls), cp(1), rm(1), tar(1), grep(1), sed(1), xargs(1) etc. I believe it's a
> good idea to install them into /usr/local and keep vendor supplied
> binaries in /usr.

Remember the goal of the GNU Project.  It is to create a complete
operating system plus applications that are all completely free
software.  On a GNU operating system the GNU utilities *are* the
vendor supplied binaries.  It would seem that the important point is
that the software is free software and not that it is GNU Project
software.  Perhaps others disagree.  However I do agree that among
free software there are choices and differences in flavors.

> Unfortunately, I like in general the GNU stuff and
> therefore I prepend to PATH /usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin:$PATH.
> And that's how I got into the trouble.

I do the same thing as you are doing with putting /usr/local ahead of
/usr in my PATH.  At this point you are creating your own personalized
distribution of software.  You are free to make your own
modifications.  Such as removing or appending as you need.

For example, HP-UX has a perfectly functional 'who' command with
various extensions.  The GNU version is also function but without
those extensions.  Therefore on HP-UX I do not install the GNU who
command but always leave the system one as the one used.  There is no
advantage on that system.

> Yes, please make it backwards compatible, at least make in accept the
> options and silently do nothing.

No.  Accepting them but silently doing nothing would be wrong if the
action expected was not implemented.  Silently doing nothing is only
okay if that is the default anyway.  Such as 'make -b' which is just
there so that ancient scripts don't need to be changed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]