Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #187432 > unrolled thread

Free TCP/IP port numbers?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Free TCP/IP port numbers? Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-10-01 03:20 +0200
    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 03:30 +0200
      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-10-01 04:00 +0200
        Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 04:30 +0200
          Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 07:30 +0200
            Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 09:40 +0200
              Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? tomas@tuxteam.de - 2017-10-01 09:50 +0200
              Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 13:50 +0200
                Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 14:20 +0200
                  Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 15:00 +0200
                  Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 15:50 +0200
                    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 16:20 +0200
                      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 16:50 +0200
                        Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-10-02 23:10 +0200
                        Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-10-02 23:10 +0200
                          Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 23:30 +0200
                      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 16:50 +0200
                        Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 17:00 +0200
                          Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 17:40 +0200
                            Grep's "ignore binry files" option [was: Free TCP/IP port numbers?] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 18:00 +0200
                              Re: Grep's "ignore binry files" option [was: Free TCP/IP port numbers?] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-01 18:40 +0200
                Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 14:50 +0200
                Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-10-02 12:30 +0200
        Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 04:40 +0200
          Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-10-02 12:30 +0200
            Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2017-10-02 12:50 +0200
    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 10:00 +0200
    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-01 15:00 +0200
    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-10-01 15:00 +0200
      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2017-10-01 15:20 +0200
      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2017-10-04 16:50 +0200
    Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-10-02 23:00 +0200
      Re: Free TCP/IP port numbers? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-10-02 23:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#187432 — Free TCP/IP port numbers?

We are going to install a range of software on a Debian Linux installation. 
Because we run the same software (such as Celery) several times, we need to 
use port numbers different than the standard Debian port numbers chosen by 
default (because we can't run more than one instance of a server with the 
same port, and thus using the standard port number for all servers would 
fail).

How to choose TCP/IP port numbers for server software we run in such a way 
that they don't clash with "standard" Debian port numbers?

In Debian are there any ranges of port numbers dedicated (so that they 
wouldn't clash with "standard" that is used by default port numbers) for 
servers configured by users?

Note that we run (at least some of) our software not as root, so we can't 
use ports below 1024.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#187433

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

There is official list of all registered port numbers:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt

You can choose any port that is not in the list, to be sure they won't
clash.


On 01.10.2017 06:04, Victor Porton wrote:
> We are going to install a range of software on a Debian Linux installation. 
> Because we run the same software (such as Celery) several times, we need to 
> use port numbers different than the standard Debian port numbers chosen by 
> default (because we can't run more than one instance of a server with the 
> same port, and thus using the standard port number for all servers would 
> fail).
>
> How to choose TCP/IP port numbers for server software we run in such a way 
> that they don't clash with "standard" Debian port numbers?
>
> In Debian are there any ranges of port numbers dedicated (so that they 
> wouldn't clash with "standard" that is used by default port numbers) for 
> servers configured by users?
>
> Note that we run (at least some of) our software not as root, so we can't 
> use ports below 1024.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187434

Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

> There is official list of all registered port numbers:
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt
> 
> You can choose any port that is not in the list, to be sure they won't
> clash.

The list of port numbers you pointed to me is a subset (or at least not a 
superset) of the full list used by Debian packages.

Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to ensure that 
my port number will not clash with a port number used by a Debian package 
(by default).

So your answer to my question is wrong.

> On 01.10.2017 06:04, Victor Porton wrote:
>> We are going to install a range of software on a Debian Linux
>> installation. Because we run the same software (such as Celery) several
>> times, we need to use port numbers different than the standard Debian
>> port numbers chosen by default (because we can't run more than one
>> instance of a server with the same port, and thus using the standard port
>> number for all servers would fail).
>>
>> How to choose TCP/IP port numbers for server software we run in such a
>> way that they don't clash with "standard" Debian port numbers?
>>
>> In Debian are there any ranges of port numbers dedicated (so that they
>> wouldn't clash with "standard" that is used by default port numbers) for
>> servers configured by users?
>>
>> Note that we run (at least some of) our software not as root, so we can't
>> use ports below 1024.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187435

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Ok, I will not waste my time to argue over obvious things.
You won't get ports more "default" than from this list. Protocols, ports
and service names are registered for a reason.
Ex: If you install MySQL server it will be configured to listen on port
3306\tcp by default on any OS, be it Debian, RHEL, or Windows.



On 01.10.2017 06:40, Victor Porton wrote:
> Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
>
>> There is official list of all registered port numbers:
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt
>>
>> You can choose any port that is not in the list, to be sure they won't
>> clash.
> The list of port numbers you pointed to me is a subset (or at least not a 
> superset) of the full list used by Debian packages.
>
> Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to ensure that 
> my port number will not clash with a port number used by a Debian package 
> (by default).
>
> So your answer to my question is wrong.
>
>> On 01.10.2017 06:04, Victor Porton wrote:
>>> We are going to install a range of software on a Debian Linux
>>> installation. Because we run the same software (such as Celery) several
>>> times, we need to use port numbers different than the standard Debian
>>> port numbers chosen by default (because we can't run more than one
>>> instance of a server with the same port, and thus using the standard port
>>> number for all servers would fail).
>>>
>>> How to choose TCP/IP port numbers for server software we run in such a
>>> way that they don't clash with "standard" Debian port numbers?
>>>
>>> In Debian are there any ranges of port numbers dedicated (so that they
>>> wouldn't clash with "standard" that is used by default port numbers) for
>>> servers configured by users?
>>>
>>> Note that we run (at least some of) our software not as root, so we can't
>>> use ports below 1024.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187437

On Saturday 30 September 2017 22:28:45 Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

> Ok, I will not waste my time to argue over obvious things.
> You won't get ports more "default" than from this list. Protocols,
> ports and service names are registered for a reason.
> Ex: If you install MySQL server it will be configured to listen on
> port 3306\tcp by default on any OS, be it Debian, RHEL, or Windows.
>
Thats a bit of a stiff attitude.  If his network is an isolated private 
network, there isn't any port police going to come and rip it up or 
prosecute for reconfiguring that install to use any of the ports that 
aren't in the services list. In fact I'd recommend that none of them run 
as root on a day to day basis.

> On 01.10.2017 06:40, Victor Porton wrote:
> > Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> >> There is official list of all registered port numbers:
> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service
> >>-names-port-numbers.txt
> >>
> >> You can choose any port that is not in the list, to be sure they
> >> won't clash.
> >
> > The list of port numbers you pointed to me is a subset (or at least
> > not a superset) of the full list used by Debian packages.
> >
> > Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to
> > ensure that my port number will not clash with a port number used by
> > a Debian package (by default).
> >
> > So your answer to my question is wrong.
> >
In which case debian should publish the unlisted ports they do use, if 
for no other reason than to "stake a claim".

> >> On 01.10.2017 06:04, Victor Porton wrote:
> >>> We are going to install a range of software on a Debian Linux
> >>> installation. Because we run the same software (such as Celery)
> >>> several times, we need to use port numbers different than the
> >>> standard Debian port numbers chosen by default (because we can't
> >>> run more than one instance of a server with the same port, and
> >>> thus using the standard port number for all servers would fail).
> >>>
> >>> How to choose TCP/IP port numbers for server software we run in
> >>> such a way that they don't clash with "standard" Debian port
> >>> numbers?
> >>>
> >>> In Debian are there any ranges of port numbers dedicated (so that
> >>> they wouldn't clash with "standard" that is used by default port
> >>> numbers) for servers configured by users?
> >>>
> >>> Note that we run (at least some of) our software not as root, so
> >>> we can't use ports below 1024.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187438

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 01:28:39AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

[...]

> > > Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to
> > > ensure that my port number will not clash with a port number used by
> > > a Debian package (by default).
> > >
> > > So your answer to my question is wrong.
> > >
> In which case debian should publish the unlisted ports they do use, if 
> for no other reason than to "stake a claim".

"Debian" "should". Gene, you "should" know better ;-)

Want to start with it? Write a script which scans the /etc files in all
Debian packages for network configurations.

What else have folks forgotten here?

 - dynamic port assignments (X, rpc/portmapper: the last is known for
   having conflicted with CUPS in some distant past).

 - semi-dynamic things (e.g. Debian's way to migrate PostgreSQL)

Unfortunately, there's no "perfect" solution for the OP's problem (among
other things because there are other people having the same problem and
solving it the same way).

My advice: start with /etc/services. Find a suitable "hole", far away
from others (note that typical "dynamic" or "semi-dynamic" assignments
tend to cluster around canonical values, e.g. PostgreSQL: 5432, 5433,
5434...). Plan for collissions (this might be something as complicated
as re-trying ports until success plus some "registry" to look up where
things ended or something as simple as "notify the sysadmin", lest she
spends a night debugging the bugger).

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnQmnsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaCagCfU0izg1thGPq5ld8AP/fTx1wl
dVoAn3Vyowm/w7h6fpw9AS5oxPsis9KX
=vtzF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187439

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:34:19AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

[...]

> My advice [...]

Needless to say, I'd go with "simple", unless there's a very strong
reason against it. "Complex" is re-implementing the portmapper. Or
all those other orchestration thingies the "brave new container world"
has come up with. Perhaps you might want to have a look at what container
folks are doing.

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnQm/kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbqDQCeN/2B96cy1NL4bIpqgKgUgO8T
iTwAn0ZSmGiIRP3Ewv82+jvZY10Sm8Vp
=J5GM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187441

On Sunday 01 October 2017 03:34:19 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 01:28:39AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to
> > > > ensure that my port number will not clash with a port number
> > > > used by a Debian package (by default).
> > > >
> > > > So your answer to my question is wrong.
> >
> > In which case debian should publish the unlisted ports they do use,
> > if for no other reason than to "stake a claim".
>
> "Debian" "should". Gene, you "should" know better ;-)
>
> Want to start with it? Write a script which scans the /etc files in
> all Debian packages for network configurations.
>
That might be possible IF you wanted to use a tool like grep, but in 30 
years I've not found a way to silence the "binary file matches" messages 
from grep. That apparently un-muffle-able noise without chaining two or 
more invocations of grep makes it worthless for 95% of the searches I 
might do. The best I can do finds 460 instances of " port " in my 
own /etc tree, but from looking at that output, less than 100 actually 
assign a number, most use the output of some other function to assign 
the port.

So opening up every deb in /var/cache/apt/archives to search thru each 
ones /etc files might take this machine a week or more, and you would 
still have less than 25% of the numerical values. One things for sure, 
it would take a more imaginative approach than mine because so much of 
it appears to be dynamic assignments. One would have to emulate how each 
goes about it, and then its only valid for that machine at that box of 
time, however long it took.

However, since it seems so much of that is dynamic, one could possibly 
use the dynamic method to find a currently unused server port when the 
client requests a connection, and the client can check the number 
assigned against its own list of ports, and accept or reject, wash rinse 
repeat until one is usable by both.  Correctly done, I see at least 
20,000 possibilities in the /etc/services list. The OP just needs to 
find a coder who can write such a critter.

Sometimes necessity IS the mother of invention. If I am reading between 
the lines with sufficient clairvoyance, he wants another level of 
isolation to prevent data cross leakage between clients while all the 
traffic is on one switch per floor or some such a cable build. 

> What else have folks forgotten here?
>
>  - dynamic port assignments (X, rpc/portmapper: the last is known for
>    having conflicted with CUPS in some distant past).
>
>  - semi-dynamic things (e.g. Debian's way to migrate PostgreSQL)
>
> Unfortunately, there's no "perfect" solution for the OP's problem
> (among other things because there are other people having the same
> problem and solving it the same way).
>
> My advice: start with /etc/services. Find a suitable "hole", far away
> from others (note that typical "dynamic" or "semi-dynamic" assignments
> tend to cluster around canonical values, e.g. PostgreSQL: 5432, 5433,
> 5434...). Plan for collissions (this might be something as complicated
> as re-trying ports until success plus some "registry" to look up where
> things ended or something as simple as "notify the sysadmin", lest she
> spends a night debugging the bugger).
>
> Cheers
> -- tomás


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187442

	Hi.

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:43:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2017 03:34:19 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 01:28:39AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough to
> > > > > ensure that my port number will not clash with a port number
> > > > > used by a Debian package (by default).
> > > > >
> > > > > So your answer to my question is wrong.
> > >
> > > In which case debian should publish the unlisted ports they do use,
> > > if for no other reason than to "stake a claim".
> >
> > "Debian" "should". Gene, you "should" know better ;-)
> >
> > Want to start with it? Write a script which scans the /etc files in
> > all Debian packages for network configurations.
> >
> That might be possible IF you wanted to use a tool like grep, but in 30 
> years I've not found a way to silence the "binary file matches" messages 
> from grep.

You haven't looked hard enough. It's "grep -I".
Those manpages, sometimes reading them works wonders.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187447

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 03:13:00PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.

[...]

> You haven't looked hard enough. It's "grep -I".
> Those manpages, sometimes reading them works wonders.

Messages crossed. Great minds think alike ;-)

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnQ5KoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ2bQCeOxsOxXtXQygHMIw/a10AqxL9
laIAnAkSrzUmj12Vr6iRmAEvxHJj1EWM
=6fTW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187450

On Sunday 01 October 2017 08:13:00 Reco wrote:

> 	Hi.
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:43:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 October 2017 03:34:19 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 01:28:39AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > Assuring that my port is not in this IANA list is not enough
> > > > > > to ensure that my port number will not clash with a port
> > > > > > number used by a Debian package (by default).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So your answer to my question is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > In which case debian should publish the unlisted ports they do
> > > > use, if for no other reason than to "stake a claim".
> > >
> > > "Debian" "should". Gene, you "should" know better ;-)
> > >
> > > Want to start with it? Write a script which scans the /etc files
> > > in all Debian packages for network configurations.
> >
> > That might be possible IF you wanted to use a tool like grep, but in
> > 30 years I've not found a way to silence the "binary file matches"
> > messages from grep.
>
> You haven't looked hard enough. It's "grep -I".
> Those manpages, sometimes reading them works wonders.
>
> Reco

-I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching data; this 
is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match option.

Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise off? I've 
been reading english for about 79 years now. That my friend is Swahili, 
and I don't make a milligram of sense out of THAT.  Sure, it looks like 
english, even reads in common popular english words, but What the hell 
does it mean?  It doesn't say a thing about turning off the unwanted 
noise.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187451

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

[...]

> -I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching data; this 
> is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match option.
> 
> Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise off?

[swahili]

Let me respond in a similarly snarky way, will you?

This option says "assume a binary file doesn't match in the first place.
Don't even check". As a consequence, it seems sensible to expect the
warnings to go away.

Perhaps your English reading module needs an update? (The writing module
seems fine to me).

;-P

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnQ96QACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ5jwCcC4kZZvSntO28PHckVU8aE8yV
f3kAn3r1DPLqCQjfMgeoiDSJrJNjd9Sl
=F8lD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187452

	Hi.

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2017 10:11:48 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > -I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching data;
> > > this is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match option.
> > >
> > > Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise off?
> >
> > [swahili]
> >
> > Let me respond in a similarly snarky way, will you?
> >
> > This option says "assume a binary file doesn't match in the first
> > place. Don't even check".
> 
> Izzat what that says?  Why then does it not just say so?

Patches are welcome. File a bug against "grep" package, make a world a
better place.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187499

On Monday, October 02, 2017 09:39:38 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Patches are welcome. File a bug against "grep" package, make a world a
> > better place.
> 
> It has been my experience, in general, that man page patches are rarely
> welcome. 


> Especially by Debian packagers of programs that get their man
> pages from upstream.

Of course!

But you (or they) could submit it upstream.


> If the program is written *by* Debian, then there may be a chance, but
> this is not the case with GNU grep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187500

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Patches are welcome. File a bug against "grep" package, make a world a
> better place.

It has been my experience, in general, that man page patches are rarely
welcome.  Especially by Debian packagers of programs that get their man
pages from upstream.

If the program is written *by* Debian, then there may be a chance, but
this is not the case with GNU grep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187506

	Hi.

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:39:38AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Patches are welcome. File a bug against "grep" package, make a world a
> > better place.
> 
> It has been my experience, in general, that man page patches are rarely
> welcome.  Especially by Debian packagers of programs that get their man
> pages from upstream.
> 
> If the program is written *by* Debian, then there may be a chance, but
> this is not the case with GNU grep.

What benefits the community more - a (possibly) deserved rant in a
maillist, or a patch in Debian bugtracker?

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187453

On Sunday 01 October 2017 10:11:48 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > -I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching data;
> > this is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match option.
> >
> > Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise off?
>
> [swahili]
>
> Let me respond in a similarly snarky way, will you?
>
> This option says "assume a binary file doesn't match in the first
> place. Don't even check".

Izzat what that says?  Why then does it not just say so?

> As a consequence, it seems sensible to 
> expect the warnings to go away.
>
> Perhaps your English reading module needs an update? (The writing
> module seems fine to me).
>
My english reading module is fine.  Out of date maybe, but hey, so is the 
60 lb Websters Dictionary we had in school in about 1942. They also 
taught phonics back then, something the manpage writer may not have 
taken since they quit teaching it in 1946 or so.
> ;-P
>
> Cheers
> -- tomás


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187455

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2017 10:11:48 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > -I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching data;
> > > this is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match option.
> > >
> > > Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise off?
> >
> > [swahili]
> >
> > Let me respond in a similarly snarky way, will you?
> >
> > This option says "assume a binary file doesn't match in the first
> > place. Don't even check".
> 
> Izzat what that says?  Why then does it not just say so?

Please go back and digest the quote I snipped for you (for the long
option). Here a more focused snipped from that:

   --binary-files=TYPE
          If the first few bytes of a file indicate that the file
          contains binary data [...] By default, TYPE is binary,
          and grep normally outputs either a one-line message saying
          that a binary file matches [...]
          If TYPE is without-match, grep assumes that a binary file
          does not match [...]

My English module masters this (and it is pretty old too. Moreover, it
was a cheap second-hand one, labelled "for foreigners" ;-)

Hey, the doc even contains the trigger phrase "binary file matches",
which is how I found the spot in the docs.

> My english reading module is fine.  Out of date maybe, but hey, so is the 
> 60 lb Websters Dictionary we had in school in about 1942. They also 
> taught phonics back then, something the manpage writer may not have 
> taken since they quit teaching it in 1946 or so.

:-)

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnRAeUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaGggCeN7j9gWqYebJgnEjrCGg+nn2F
FxEAn0HhpXDmqf1wXj5rEkFE268seGn1
=LZ4s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187459

On Sunday 01 October 2017 10:55:33 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 October 2017 10:11:48 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > -I     Process a binary file as if it did not contain matching
> > > > data; this is equivalent to the --binary-files=without-match
> > > > option.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, thats supposed to tell me it will shut that #)^(&^$ noise
> > > > off?
> > >
> > > [swahili]
> > >
> > > Let me respond in a similarly snarky way, will you?
> > >
> > > This option says "assume a binary file doesn't match in the first
> > > place. Don't even check".
> >
> > Izzat what that says?  Why then does it not just say so?
>
> Please go back and digest the quote I snipped for you (for the long
> option). Here a more focused snipped from that:
>
>    --binary-files=TYPE
>           If the first few bytes of a file indicate that the file
>           contains binary data [...] By default, TYPE is binary,
>           and grep normally outputs either a one-line message saying
>           that a binary file matches [...]
>           If TYPE is without-match, grep assumes that a binary file
>           does not match [...]

And that, while lots more typing, seems to duplicate the -I option.

> My English module masters this (and it is pretty old too. Moreover, it
> was a cheap second-hand one, labelled "for foreigners" ;-)
>
Chuckle... It is working very well, too. And I thank you for taking the 
trouble to learn a language you didn't often hear growing up. Had I 
stayed in school, the language class choices then were Latin and French. 
But TBT, I didn't stick around, I had an allergy problem which turned 
out to be milk when it was finally found, and my algebra teacher was 
more interested in off-color standup comedy than in teaching algebra, so 
in 1948 there was a job market for tv repairmen, so I quit and went to 
work. Fixing these new-fangled things they called tv sets.  I was 14. So 
I was a geek before the word was invented. :) But now I'm an just old 
geezer that can regale you with stories about some of the BTDT's I've 
done. :)  And I've learned something useful today, thanks to you and 
Reco.

> Hey, the doc even contains the trigger phrase "binary file matches",
> which is how I found the spot in the docs.
>
> > My english reading module is fine.  Out of date maybe, but hey, so
> > is the 60 lb Websters Dictionary we had in school in about 1942.
> > They also taught phonics back then, something the manpage writer may
> > not have taken since they quit teaching it in 1946 or so.
> >
> :-)
>
> Cheers
> -- t


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#187460 — Grep's "ignore binry files" option [was: Free TCP/IP port numbers?]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:36:40AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> >    --binary-files=TYPE

[...]

> And that, while lots more typing, seems to duplicate the -I option.

It does; actually, --binary-files=foo gives you some more control, depending
on <foo>, whereas -I abbreviates one commonly used case, namely the
"without-match" case.

This pattern (long vs. short options; sometimes long options offer more
knobs) is pervasive in the GNU utilities world, and has a historical
reason.

In the good ol' times, there were a few proprietary Unixes (AT&T, Sun's
Xenix, what not), and they all came with their own set of utilities,
with mixed quality and slightly incompatible options.

The GNU toolset was installable on most unices and tried, as far as
possible, to be downward-compatible to all of them (plus often being
of higher quality: less bugs, less limitations. For one anecdote, the
system's awk had a line length limit of 1K and silently (!) truncated
longer lines; GNU awk just digested any line length you threw at it).

Long story short, any sysadmin worth their salt ended up installing
the GNU utils.

This explains a bit that thicket of options you see nowadays, often
with long and short variants (the systematized double dash for long,
and single dash for short options is already GNU's attempt at taming
the chaos: you'll see many vestigial variants, like the single-dash
longs of find(1) et al).

Then Linux came and most of the user space was there, waiting...
(the success of the free BSDs and Linux wouldn't have been the same
otherwise).

> > My English module masters this (and it is pretty old too. Moreover, it
> > was a cheap second-hand one, labelled "for foreigners" ;-)
> >
> Chuckle... It is working very well, too. And I thank you for taking the 
> trouble to learn a language you didn't often hear growing up. Had I 
> stayed in school, the language class choices then were Latin and French. 
> But TBT, I didn't stick around, I had an allergy problem which turned 
> out to be milk when it was finally found, and my algebra teacher was 
> more interested in off-color standup comedy than in teaching algebra, so 
> in 1948 there was a job market for tv repairmen, so I quit and went to 
> work. Fixing these new-fangled things they called tv sets.  I was 14. So 
> I was a geek before the word was invented. :) But now I'm an just old 
> geezer that can regale you with stories about some of the BTDT's I've 
> done. :)  And I've learned something useful today, thanks to you and 
> Reco.

Hey, thank you for taking my snark in such a sporty way :-)

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnREBEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZL2gCfbrbqDfNenulLh4/YMNLboUlp
FZ0AnAo1yiIXTdgMkRCZyVkZ2Uqfr4rt
=VMa9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web