Rancid, the networking config differ, is missing from the portage. Attaching an ebuild. This was originally copied from an existing ebuild from the internet which I've fixed a few bugs with.
Created attachment 99948 [details] Ebuild for rancid 2.3.1
I'll take a look at within the next few days.
It looks like gentoo will need the expect patch as well, I'm having problems with the pagination and expect. Detail here: http://shrubbery.net/rancid/#osystems
(In reply to comment #2) > I'll take a look at within the next few days. > I'm out, didn't found the time to look into this. Re-assigning to maintainer-wanted@ again. Sorry guys.
Any hope for this one? -A
Gentoo is definitely in need of maintainers...
I created a new ebuild for rancid-2.3.3 . You can find it at http://github.com/tomushu/gentoo_ebuilds/tree/master/rancid/ and a short install how to at http://tomushu.greenlab.ro/
(In reply to comment #7) > I created a new ebuild for rancid-2.3.3 . You can find it at > http://github.com/tomushu/gentoo_ebuilds/tree/master/rancid/ and a short > install how to at http://tomushu.greenlab.ro/ > I have created a howto RANCID on the gentoo-wiki. Tested tomshu's ebuild and it works already with rancid-2.3.5. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RANCID_using_svn_and_viewvc.
The ebuild also could to have this line added: RESTRICT="mirror" to avoid trying mirrors for source code that won't be there. Also, if rancid is built to use svn, should it depend on cvs?
Also, from src_install: fperms 0770 /var/rancid fowners rancid:rancid /var/rancid/ These needs to be moved to pkg_postinstall because first time this ebuild hits a machine the users doesnt exist yet at that stage. Moved to under enew{user,group} and it works. :)
I've picked though the ebuild and tweaked a bit, anyone wanting to use it or pick anything from it can have a look here: http://rsync.boxed.no/overlays/boxed-main.xml The actual ebuild is here: http://rsync.boxed.no/boxed-main/net-misc/rancid/rancid-2.3.6-r1.ebuild -A
And this one will also, as a added bonus feature, actually work. http://rsync.boxed.no/boxed-main/net-misc/rancid/rancid-2.3.6-r3.ebuild -A
Created attachment 336428 [details] ebuild and patches for rancid 2.3.8
Created attachment 336430 [details] rancid license license file for rancid
Attaching an ebuild and patches for rancid 2.3.8. The patches fix the following issues: rancid-config.patch: change some insecure default configuration options to more secure defaults rancid-disablemaintainermode.patch fixes maintainer mode issues with automake rancid-mailprefix.patch replaces a rancid configure-time option for the mail prefix with a configurable mail prefix in /etc/rancid.conf Note that this ebuild also adds a LICENSE attribute; I have attached the rancid license file separately.
CCing proxy maintainers(by Andrew Hamilton's request through mail) and license team @licenses, please check attached license and decide if it's free or not. IMO license is based on some kind of BSD one, but i am not expert ;-)
(In reply to comment #16) > @licenses, please check attached license and decide if it's free or not. > IMO license is based on some kind of BSD one, but i am not expert ;-) It is derived from the original BSD license (BSD-4) with an additional clause: 5. It is requested that non-binding fixes and modifications be contributed back to Terrapin Communications, Inc. Depending on how one understands the word "requested", this may or may not fail the "Desert Island" test: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_Groups#When_is_a_license_a_free_software_license.3F> Furthermore, files Makefile.am and bin/mtrancid.in are distributed under more restrictive terms: Copyright (C) 1997-2011 by Terrapin Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed without fee for non-commerical purposes provided that this license remains intact and unmodified with any RANCID distribution. There is no warranty or other guarantee of fitness of this software. It is provided solely "as is". The author(s) disclaim(s) all responsibility and liability with respect to this software's usage or its effect upon hardware, computer systems, other software, or anything else. The non-commercial restriction makes it non-free.
I interpret "requested" as meaning optional. If it was intended that all fixes and modifications MUST be contributed back the license would explicitly state "required" and not "requested". FWIW the package is in Fedora as well and the RPM spec file lists the license type as "BSD with advertising". Now I know this doesn't automatically make it OK to bring into Gentoo but obviously there is some precedent there (and presumably a similar discussion may have been had when it was brought into Fedora). It appears more of an oversight than a deliberate act to have a different license on the above two files, because what's in the COPYING file actually seems more complete than what is in Makefile.am and bin/mtrancid.in . Also from the RANCID FAQ: 5) License Q. Please explain the RANCID license. A. Quite simple; read it. It is a slightly modified BSD license; it has an additional clause. This leads me to think it's intended to be all one license, not different license clauses for different components. I'll send an email to the primary author and see if I can get some clarification.
in tree, keeping this open 'till license got resolved.
I've had a response in email, from the maintainer of the project. It -is- the case that the differing license header is an oversight: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RANCID License Inconsistency Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:29:01 +0000 From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> To: Reuben Farrelly <xx@reub.net> CC: Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ <rancid@shrubbery.net> Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:34:06PM +1100, Reuben Farrelly: > Hi, > > Tracking a Gentoo Bugzilla entry, where a contributor is trying to get > an ebuild of RANCID into the tree: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151846 > > There's a concern in relation to the license, in which one of the > reviewers has stated "Furthermore, files Makefile.am and bin/mtrancid.in > are distributed under more restrictive terms". > > Looking at the src code in 2.3.8 and 3.0a1 it appears that this is the > case - the copyright notice at the top of those two individual files are > slightly different to the COPYING file in the root of the tarball. > > Can you please clarify if this is deliberate or an oversight? It looks > like an oversight but... This is an oversight. I have updated the code repository so that the 3.0 release will be corrected. Also, clause 5, is optional, merely a request. 3.0 will include a 6th clause as follows: ## 6. Parties packaging or redistributing RANCID MAY NOT distribute altered ## versions of the etc/rancid.types.base file nor alter how this file is ## processed nor when in relation to etc/rancid.types.conf. The purpose ## of this condition is to help suppress our support costs. gentoo's input on that is welcome. -----------
(In reply to comment #20) > Also, clause 5, is optional, merely a request. Good, so as already conjectured in comment #18, it is a free software license. The text from attachment 336430 [details] (maybe after removing the ## garbage) should be committed as new license file, and it can be added to the MISC-FREE group. However: > 3.0 will include a 6th clause as follows: > > ## 6. Parties packaging or redistributing RANCID MAY NOT distribute altered > ## versions of the etc/rancid.types.base file nor alter how this file is > ## processed nor when in relation to etc/rancid.types.conf. The purpose > ## of this condition is to help suppress our support costs. > > gentoo's input on that is welcome. "MAY NOT distribute altered versions" means that it's non-free. Not so much a problem for Gentoo (because we can simply remove the license from MISC-FREE again), but I guess that other distros like Debian or Fedora would have to drop the package.
so, will this bug include adding rancid version 3.0 to portage, or should I open a separate version bump request bug for that one (2.3.8 is in the tree already)?
I will work on getting 3.0 into the tree.
Already in tree.
