Control: forwarded -1 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/854089/
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 00:40:15 +0100 Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se > wrote: > 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 I agree there's not much more to document. As long as upstream keeps them, I'd rather still ship them though - no reason to diverge. What I could fix though is the mention of the filepaths - that's too distro-dependent and doesn't offer much value anyway, so I've sent a patch upstream to drop it. If users want to find where executables resides there are many trivial ways to do it. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
