Patch: Support NIS netgroups

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This patch extends the '-H' option to support NIS netgroups and introduces an 
exclude option '-E' to ignore certain hosts from existing groups.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by m...@zamiam.de on 15 Feb 2011 at 4:18

Attachments:

• 10_netgroup_support.quilt

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry, this is off course not a defect but a proposed enhancement.

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 15 Feb 2011 at 4:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2011 at 3:48

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi!

A bit delayed, but I finally I found time to rework this patch as you suggested.

There are actually two patches:

cli_exclude.patch: 
------------------
introduces an exclude Option '-E'. Its arguments are compiled into
a regular expression and matching hosts will be subtracted from the given host 
list. For NIS netgroups this is an important features since these are rather 
static in nature.

I chose to centralise the host-option parsing code and put it in psshtutil.py.

nis_support.patch (depends on the former patch)
-----------------

This patch enables the use of NIS netgroups preceded by an '@' prefix with the 
'-H'
option. It depends on ctypes and libc6.so and will therefore most likely not 
work 
on Windows hosts. But if you do not use netgroups the corresponding code is 
never run.

I will gladly answer questions and am open for feedback. Feel free to use this 
as you consider appropriate.

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 23 Oct 2012 at 3:19

Attachments:

• cli_exclude.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This version of nis_support.patch should work a lot better. Sorry for the 
confusion.

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 23 Oct 2012 at 10:43

Attachments:

• nis_support.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It seems like there are potentially two ways to do specify exclusions: 1) an 
exclude option (as in this patch), 2) prefixing a host with a "-". I admit I 
haven't really thought about this enough to have a preference. Is there any 
particular reason that the exclude option is better?

The reliance on ctypes makes me a little uncomfortable, but this seems like a 
useful enough use case that I can see including it. It might be helpful, 
though, to give a message like "netgroups are not supported on this platform" 
if an "@" is specified but ctypes can't load.

Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

One might argue that a command like 

$ pss -H -help -h myhosts.txt ...

looks confusing (help would in this case be a host called help). That is: 
provided optparser is not offended by option values starting with '-' and 
throws an exception.

The exclude-patch arguments are actually exclude patterns and I consider this a 
more convenient feature than just excluding individual strings prefixed by a 
'-'.

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 13 Nov 2012 at 12:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is a modified nis_support.patch. I prints a more detailed error message 
and raises an exception in case libc.6.so cannot be loaded.

Additionally resolve_netgroup() expects the netgroup strings including the 
leading '@'.

Would this suit your expectations better?

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 13 Nov 2012 at 1:39

Attachments:

• nis_support.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is looking pretty good. I'll be sure to include this in the next release. 
Thank you very much for your contribution.

Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com on 13 Nov 2012 at 5:38

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Andrew, I thought a README might be helpful. The patch is attached to this 
message.

Original comment by m...@zamiam.de on 21 Nov 2012 at 2:01

Attachments:

• readme-nis.patch