Control: tags -1 + wontfix upstream Hello jidanni,
Sorry for the very late followup... First some historic information is available in: - https://bugs.debian.org/325290 - See upstream commit 7dfb0366655a136f82c23fb3a6e6f30b482e3f86 adds manpage. - See also commit a07b2a77925f320d85c5256933b90a4ef39b4fd4 Further comments inlined below... On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:29:39AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: > Package: iproute > Version: 20090324-1 > Severity: wishlist > File: /usr/share/man/man8/routel.8.gz > > Regarding: > FILES > /usr/bin/routef > /usr/bin/routel > > * Shouldn't section (8) commands be in sbin, not bin? If my opinion counts I'd be willing to follow in Arch Linux footsteps and (after doing usrmerge) symlink sbin/ to bin/ so we can avoid ever again having a discussion about bin vs sbin. On a more serious note, these scripts where first installed in their current path in ancient times. I don't think it's worthwhile trying to move them now. > * Man pages usually list sbin or bin files. > * The commands are so different, they deserve their own man pages. They are tiny shell scripts whos documentation is magnitudes larger then the actual scripts. I don't think they're worth more. I'm thus tagging this bug report (based on the subject line being what's requested) as wontfix. They where only documented at all in the first place because of a request to do so. (See previously mentioned bug report.) If anything, I'd suggest stop installing the routef/routel scripts (and their manpage). I simply don't see the value in shipping them and I think very few people even knows or cares about their existance. This is really up to the new maintainer(s) to decide though, and I'm thus leaving the bug report open until they make the final call. > * Of course I tried routef before reading the documentation. Luckily it > didn't do what it said, and my networking was fine (bug?) even though I was > root. And even if not root, routef doesn't return an error. (Lucky for you I guess...) Regards, Andreas Henriksso
