Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, alex@wnm.net Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906211211160.15519-100000@dt054n86.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <22955.929991242@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:42:46 MST, Doug wrote: > > > [...] there is an outstanding PR that shows it > > doesn't work for everybody, and there is absolutely no justification for > > leaving an example in the conf file that conflicts with the man page. > > Doug, I'm annoyed that you ignored the most important part of my > previous mail. What I quote you on having said above is not true There > is no outstanding PR that shows anything at all on this issue. The PR > you're talking about is 100% content-free. "It doesn't work with the conf file that came with the system, but it does work if I change the conf file to match the documentation" is pretty good content in my book. Obviously he doesn't include information on how to repeat the problem in a verifiable way, but that doesn't (in my book anyway) invalidate the PR. > I'm particularly keen in seeing inetd as bug-free as possible, so I urge > you _again_ to produce a meaningful "How-To-Repeat". I urge you, again, to try and understand my point. There is no reason to have the man page and the example conf file out of synch. Also, as Dag-Erling pointed out, the real problem is much deeper than either, however bringing the documentation up to date *should* be a priority regardless of how many of the other problems you choose to fix. > > (No justification other than the ubiquitous, "We've always done it > > that way.") > > This is an aside, but it's worth noting. A comment like that makes it > sound like you underestimate the time a sysadmin saves by knowing "the > way things have always been". Don't be ridiculous, the two things have nothing to do with one another. You're trying to justify perpetuating an error as a time saver to people who already know better, and I'm trying to point out that new users shouldn't be hampered by this kind of nonsense. Fix the man page, the config file AND the code and no one will be inconvenienced because it will all work the way it ought to. > In this particular case, note that both OpenBSD and NetBSD ship with an > inetd.conf that uses the service name "ident" instead of "auth". Even if they were doing everything right, you're still tossing in red herrings. My point is not about whether it works, my point is that the documentation should be consistent with reality. Whether we're talking about an ideal reality or not is a whole other story. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9906211211160.15519-100000>