Michael Uleysky wrote: > 2014-02-03 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>: > >> Michael Uleysky wrote: >>> 2014-02-03 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> I am getting ready to change the iana file installation in LFS. The >>>> procedure will be to download: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/lfs-packages/conglomeration/iana-etc/iana-files-1.0.tar.xz >>>> >>>> After unpacking the install will be: >>>> >>>> install -m644 -u root -g root services protocols /etc >>>> install -m744 -u root -g root update* /usr/sbin >>>> >>> >>> I add a simple Makefile for this. >> >> Why add a Makefile for such a simple install? >> >> >>>> Two executable scripts are installed, update-iana-protocols and >>>> update-iana-services. These scripts create /usr/share/iana-etc if it >>>> does not exist and use wget (not available in LFS) to get the upstream >>>> xml files. The scripts then parse the xml files and update >>>> /etc/protocols and /etc/services as appropriate. >>>> >>>> As I write this, I'm thinking that the header of the installed files >>>> should perhaps also read: >>>> >>>> # To update this file, use the update-iana-<file> script. >>>> >>> Also include in my patch. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> We might also want to just number the tarball iana-files-1.tar.xz and >>>> increment the number as needed without major/minor versions. >>>> >>> May be iana-files-$DATE_OF_UPDATE.tar.xz? >> >> Seems to be overkill since the only time I foresee this changing is if >> the upstream xml format changes. We have been using files since 2006 >> and this is the first time it has come up. >> > Ok, I agree with it. > >>> Other tweaks can be made. Please let me know what you think. >>> >> I create a patch with some additions: >> 1) Simple Makefile for installation. I think, we must also include source >> protocol-numbers.xml and service-names-port-numbers.xml in installation. > > I thought about that, but why is it needed? It's not in the old tarball >> and we've never needed it. I'm not completely against this though. >> > For me is much simple to type make; make install than type long install > bla-bla-bla strings. Make is just more familiar. > Old iana-etc have a Makefile. > > >>> 2) I add an option "restore" for update scripts. With this option >> services >>> and protocols will be regenerated from backup xml files. >> >> Again, this seems to be overkill. The tarball has the needed files if >> that is needed. Generally the files are just in /etc and don't often >> change. The only update we've ever needed is to change sunrpc to >> rpcbind in the services file. >> > It can be dangerous situation, if someone try to update and leave with > unusable files because IANA changes format again. In this case restore will > be useful. > > Another comment. If we start adding options to the scripts, we need to >> add at least a help option and perhaps man pages. I'm trying to KISS >> this change. >> > I completely agree with you. My solution is not optimal and I also not very > like it.
> Ok, do we really need such thing as update scripts, installed somewhere in > the system? I think, not. So, lets just place protocols and services in > /etc (we can do it without Makefile, of course) and leave update scripts > only in the tarball for people who want update _before_ install. It is just > a way as original iana-etc works. But in this case we need to set > IANA_DIR=. and remove /etc in last two strings in scripts. That's a good thought. Then it's a one liner and we can let the user install the scripts as desired. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
