Re: [bug-inetutils] some notes on inetutils-1.8

[melodramus]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:15:21 -0400
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> wrote:

>    > The following should work to compile only syslogd, as per
>    > ./configure --help, INSTALL and README.
>    > 
>    > ./configure --disable-server --disable-clients --enable-syslogd
>    > 
>    > What `four lines' did you use?  Maybe something can be improved.
> 
>    i just disabled everything i didn't want, which made up four text
>    lines (rows?) on my monitor. if --enable-syslogd works,
>    --disable-syslogd=no should work too (by convention), like
>    --disable-syslogd should be substitutable with
>    --enable-syslogd=no. using --disable-syslogd=no has the advantage
>    that one can middle-click (Xorg quick copy/paste) the option from
>    the configure --help output.
> 
> Please show the exact command you used.  Did you try the one I
> suggested?

i re-installed with --enable-xxx and it worked fine. however, the
command line scratched the fourth line on the monitor too (syslogd,
logger, ping, ping6, hostname, traceroute, encryption, auth, shishi).
in other words: both ways part the package at about the half.

i really think that this inetutils package doesn't reflect common
private use-cases well. there is too much loose stuff in it, and the
related stuff (inetd services) isn't a necessity on a 'modern' home
system. the latter is the stuff belonging into this package.
concluding, rather syslogd and others don't really fit. they don't
really fit!

see, coreutils installs quite a lot i never used myself. but my system
uses it frequently. there may be a rest i don't care much about.
however, the inetd utils are fully redundant on my system, and they can
be dangerous. i don't want to have them lying around on my system. this
is why this mixture of inetd utils and other system stuff gives me a
bad feel in the stomach. it doesn't feel right!

> 
>    >    what about an iproute implementation (without berkeley-db
>    >    dependency ;)
>    > 
>    > Would you like to write such a program for us?
> 
>    would i then ask you for doing it? i'm not in this field of
>    programming, just maintain a system. sorry.
> 
> Someone has to do it, would you like to do so?

i really have _no_!! insight into the internals, can barely use the
command lines. please don't stick further.


> The `unix' tradition was to not have any help output from programs

that was in the _rise_ of *nix!

> -h was already used for different tools and

that formed the tradition!

best wishes,
MeloDramus <address@hidden>