[gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 248 bytes --]

iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Andrew Udvare]

> On 2015-10-14, at 23:39, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> -mike

If I had got on a machine lacking the ping command, I would immediately install it and otherwise avoid that machine (it's 'broken'). It really should not get removed, plus it is tiny.

A lot of hosts now block ICMP requests but it's just habit for many to type `ping google.com` or similar to test when they suspect their internet is down.

Andrew

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Dale]

Andrew Udvare wrote:
>> On 2015-10-14, at 23:39, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
>> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
>> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
>> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
>> -mike
> If I had got on a machine lacking the ping command, I would immediately install it and otherwise avoid that machine (it's 'broken'). It really should not get removed, plus it is tiny.
>
> A lot of hosts now block ICMP requests but it's just habit for many to type `ping google.com` or similar to test when they suspect their internet is down.
>
> Andrew
>


+1

I do this all the time myself. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?

What's the gain? The package is tiny and it is one of the most
basic network diagnostic tools. When setting up a machine, ping
may be the only tool that lets you figure out why all the fetches
are failing. I think we should keep it, unless there is a
compelling reason not to (or when we get s4s).

Regards,
Tobias

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:08:54 +0200
Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi! 
> 
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> > installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> > all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> > releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?  
> 
> What's the gain? The package is tiny and it is one of the most
> basic network diagnostic tools. When setting up a machine, ping
> may be the only tool that lets you figure out why all the fetches
> are failing. I think we should keep it, unless there is a
> compelling reason not to (or when we get s4s).

# busybox ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=56 time=37.303 ms



(bb is in @system afaik)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 10/15/15 4:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:08:54 +0200
> Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
>>> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
>>> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
>>> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
>> What's the gain? The package is tiny and it is one of the most
>> basic network diagnostic tools. When setting up a machine, ping
>> may be the only tool that lets you figure out why all the fetches
>> are failing. I think we should keep it, unless there is a
>> compelling reason not to (or when we get s4s).
> # busybox ping 8.8.8.8
> PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=56 time=37.303 ms
>
>
>
> (bb is in @system afaik)
>

i should read an entire thread before responding :)  i didn't see 
someone had already pointed out busybox.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 10/15/15 4:08 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
>> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
>> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
>> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> What's the gain? The package is tiny and it is one of the most
> basic network diagnostic tools. When setting up a machine, ping
> may be the only tool that lets you figure out why all the fetches
> are failing. I think we should keep it, unless there is a
> compelling reason not to (or when we get s4s).
>
> Regards,
> Tobias
>
use busybox's ping.  its poorly maintained if its maintained at all.  it 
makes my life easier because i don't have to worry about its brokenness 
on alt libc's.  just look at the patches we have to carry for it.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:39:55 -0400 as excerpted:

> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require all
> systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of releasing
> stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> -mike

Talking about iputils...

What recently changed that previously pulled in iputils as a depend (of 
what type I'm not sure)?

As I've occasionally posted, I negate every @system entry in 
/etc/portage/profile/packages, effectively giving me an empty @system set 
(which depclean warns about, the way I know that the cascaded @system 
list hasn't been updated, forcing me to update my negations).

But until a week or so ago, something was apparently still pulling iputils 
in as a dependency, as it wasn't in any of my sets included in 
world_sets, yet was still not depcleaned.  A week or so ago that changed, 
and depclean wanted to remove it, but I decided it was useful enough that 
I wanted to keep it, so added it to the appropriate set that's included 
in my world_sets file, so depclean no longer wants to remove it.

But I still don't know what was previously pulling in iputils as a dep, 
that no longer does so now.

IOW, at least for me, the whole subject of the thread wouldn't have 
mattered until very recently, since something else was evidently pulling 
in iputils as a dep.  Only now that it's no longer doing so, does normal 
iputils listing in @system, that I've actually negated here along with 
the rest of @system listings, actually come into play.

So what was that dep, and what are the circumstances surrounding its 
removal as a dep?  I'm curious as to what triggered the whole change in 
status in the first place.

(Tho obviously I wasn't curious enough to go scrounging thru the git logs 
and updated packages between that update and the previous one, to find 
out what it was that way.  But now that it has come up here, I thought 
I'd ask, as there's obviously some backstory that could prove interesting 
to the discussion, that people with intact @systems probably would have 
never noticed.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?

IMO this should certainly be installed by default, but it should also
not be a part of the @system set unless portage depends on it or
something like that.

Thus this should probably wait until we start releasing stage4s.

The fact that everybody wants a package to be installed shouldn't be a
reason to put it in the @system set.  It should instead be a reason to
have some tool other than the @system set to give everybody what they
want.  We need one set for the stuff that everybody agrees is
indispensable (@tbd), and a different set for the minimum set of
software (@system) you need to bootstrap the rest of the packages in
the repo.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15/10/15 06:57 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger
> <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it
>> only installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to
>> require all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the
>> long idea of releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> 
> IMO this should certainly be installed by default, but it should
> also not be a part of the @system set unless portage depends on
> it or something like that.
> 
> Thus this should probably wait until we start releasing stage4s.
> 

So as mentioned already, there's a ping functionality provided by
busybox (and busybox won't be dropped from @system any time soon,
right?).  So long as people know that works (which may require
documentation updates), the removal of iputils will likely have very
little impact.

Secondly, iamben and I were discussing that the addition of a
section to the Handbook, "Optional: Highly Recommended Packages and
Tools" to, say, the bottom of the 'Installing system tools' chapter.
 A table containing package name and a quick description of its
importance should do.

Thirdly, is there any method that will alert users that iputils is
going to be depcleaned after it's dropped from @system ??  I know we
recommend people run it with --pretend, but if people aren't looking
for packages being dropped from @system I can see this falling
through the cracks a lot...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYfvwUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe18eQEA7NBwxWbm5so+bTRUDNSWtY36
iEawa30vYoGvTo963GIA/1qrosPRVdxhEys5Wf2t3c6h7BWAmujd+A9sh035OoVb
=Ztgc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 10/14/15 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> -mike

i can live with this.  the busybox ebuild provides ping.  let's just 
document `ln -sf /bin/busybox /bin/ping`

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 10/14/2015 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
> -mike
> 

Get rid of it. The @system set isn't for "stuff a lot of people want
installed."

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[hasufell]

On 10/15/2015 03:26 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 11:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> iputils is currently in @system for everyone.  by default, it only
>> installs `ping`.  do we feel strongly enough about this to require
>> all systems include it ?  or should this wait for the long idea of
>> releasing stage4's instead of stage3's ?
>> -mike
>>
> 
> Get rid of it. The @system set isn't for "stuff a lot of people want
> installed."
> 
> 

+1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] drop iputils from @system (i.e. ping)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 217 bytes --]

i will drop iputils from @system:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/563148

but not until our releases are sorted out:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445

and i'll see if we can't get that sorted out sooner rather than later
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]