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

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Why do you suppose it should reside in bin? Inetutils installs it
   > (and other utils as well) in $prefix/libexec. Use
   > --libexecdir=DIR option to direct it some other place.

   /bin is the 'traditional' place for it (i know you give a damn on
   tradition and good rites!).

No, libexec/ is the `traditional' place for daemons.  They aren't user
programs, thus have no place in /bin.

   so i tried to find it where i found the latter. i never expected it
   in libexec though because, in a sane world, there weren't a folder
   called libexec that contains main bin's.  to me lib-exec is already
   a sick term. and, the fhs definition of a lib<qual> folder does
   _not_ include this usage. and the folder is in the way when trying
   to autocomplete to lib/ with tab.

The FHS isn't tradition though, they actually broke it.  Where we
install programs predates the FHS by A LOT.  I'd suggest that you stop
claiming tradition as a basis for your arguments, since they have so
far been wrong.

   in further other words: re-think your position because it is not
   standard conformant (like libexec itself) and does not reflect
   common usage.

It is what is standard, and traditional on GNU and has been for the
past 20+ years.  And that is the system that we develop for, you can
easily install the daemons elsewhere if it doesn't suite your needs by
using the --libexecdir option.

   > The -? option is quite often used in GNU implementations as a
   > shorthand for --help, so there was no "breaking traditions" here.
   > Try `tar -?', as an example.

   try sed -h and see how nicely a GNU tool can come along with good
   rites (which doesn't forbid sed -? in parallel.) why so
   separatistic???  i don't get the sense of this split. what is wrong
   with -h that you discriminate its further use? is good habits and
   practices, routine and normality, and all what makes the live of an
   admin easier (especially in mixed environments) just worthless to
   you?

-h is an INVALID option to sed, so I fail to see your point.  As a
administrator you'd realise that having -h output help in some
programs, and in some not would be frustrating, which is EXACTLY why
we picked -? as a short option since it does not conflict with any
other options used.


Please stop attacking us in this manner, I asked you in private to
adopt a friendlier tone but this is simply enough.