On 31 March 2011 21:17, Trevor Vaughan <tvaug...@onyxpoint.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if it's that easy. > > In Fedora, at least, network materials are grouped into the > 'initscripts' package and items such as /etc/hosts and /etc/services > are in the 'setup' package. > > You almost would need a LSB category to give these a really broad > header (where applicable). > > I'm not sure if that's a good idea though. > > Perhaps: etc_services, etc_hosts , etc_networks etc...? > > It's based on where they live but that seems to be more consistent > than anything else.
I can't speak for Fedora's packaging, but my impression is that these files are all ultimately serving the name service, configured via /etc/nsswitch.conf and thus part of GNU libc. The absence of any of these files due to packaging differences should be irrelevant, since they (AFAIK) are all default choices of the name service switch config, and hence have the same basic format. > > Trevor > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Oliver Hookins <ohook...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 31, 4:45 pm, Jacob Helwig <ja...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:16:31 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote: >>> >>> > I don't like 'port', but I'm having a hard time coming up with a good >>> > alternate. >>> >>> > sys_service? >>> >>> > The man page says "The Internet network services list" so perhaps >>> > net_svc or net_service? >>> >>> network_service, or net_service are currently the leading candidates in >>> my mind, for what it's worth. >> >> I don't mean to muddy the water (especially as I'm only joining the >> thread very late in the game), but shouldn't this be grouped under the >> more general heading of name service? That is to say, the files-style >> databases that are in the same format between protocols, services, >> ethers and rpc. >> >> By extension, shouldn't such a generic type/provider support all of >> these databases and be able to store values in any of them? >> >> To be completely accurate in this abstraction, technically /etc/hosts >> would also be covered (and /etc/networks). Is this all a fair call or >> is this a debate best saved for another day? >> >>> >>> -- >>> Jacob Helwig >>> >>> signature.asc >>> < 1KViewDownload >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Developers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >> >> > > > > -- > Trevor Vaughan > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc > (410) 541-6699 > tvaug...@onyxpoint.com > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
