I can't believe it's not getent.

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Saturday 31 January 2009 23:21, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:21:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 16:59:40 Rob Landley wrote:
> > > My friend Mark is working on a project called Gentoo From Scratch (faking
> > > a gentoo stage 1 environment by getting gentoo's portage to run on top of
> > > a uClibc/busybox base system), and it turns out portage needs "getent",
> > > which is a horrible gnu extension that ain't in SUSv4.
> > >
> > > Here's a small shell script that more or less implements it.  FYI.
> >
> > why are you reimplementing the wheel ?
> 
> You are _aware_ you're posting to the busybox mailing list, right?  
> Reimplementing the wheel is sort of what we do here?  (To try to come up with 
> better wheels?)
> 
> > there is already a getent replacement included with uClibc.
> 
> Good to know.  Possibly I didn't know about that because neither "make 
> install" nor "make install_utils" actually put that on the target system, and 
> thus I didn't know uClibc had one internally?  (I don't know _why_ uClibc has 
> one internally, it seems a strange place for it.

Maybe the reason was "because glibc provides it too".
On my system I definitely see it to be a part of glibc:

# ls -ld `which getent`
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           29 Jun 20  2006 /usr/bin/getent -> /usr/app/glibc-2.4/bin/getent

> However, I'd checked and  
> busybox hadn't got one.  You'll notice I didn't post this message to the 
> uClibc list.)
[skip]

Rob, I don't think being caustic helps.

Just let Mike and others know that you'd like extra/scripts/getent
in uclibc tree to be installed on "make utils_install",
otherwise people continually reinvent it. Without telling them
how upset you are that it doesn't do it now, and that you hate them
and want them to die :) :) :)   (I'm JOKING)
--
vda