[arch-dev-public] [RFC] replace traceroute
I got this feature request: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28877 As the new traceroute does not seems to depend on anything in iputils, I think that it would be better to provide it in a new, independant package. I do not see why this should be in [core], so I propose to put it into [extra] and install everything under /usr. If anyone has any concern or suggestions please let me know. Stéphane
[2012-06-12 09:31:32 -0400] Stéphane Gaudreault:
I got this feature request: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28877
As the new traceroute does not seems to depend on anything in iputils, I think that it would be better to provide it in a new, independant package. I do not see why this should be in [core], so I propose to put it into [extra] and install everything under /usr.
Well ping and traceroute are canonical tools to test connectivity; that makes them quite valuable in [core], to my humble opinion. It is also helpful to have them bundled in a single package. Are there clear-cut advantages that the new traceroute would offer over the iputils' one? Cheers. -- Gaetan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 2012-06-12 09:43, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
[2012-06-12 09:31:32 -0400] Stéphane Gaudreault:
I got this feature request: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28877
As the new traceroute does not seems to depend on anything in iputils, I think that it would be better to provide it in a new, independant package. I do not see why this should be in [core], so I propose to put it into [extra] and install everything under /usr.
Well ping and traceroute are canonical tools to test connectivity; that makes them quite valuable in [core], to my humble opinion. It is also helpful to have them bundled in a single package. Are there clear-cut advantages that the new traceroute would offer over the iputils' one?
Cheers.
The new traceroute seems to have a more active upstream maintainer and it is the version included in most major distro [1]. I do not have a strong opinion about uploading it in [core] or [extra], so [core] could be fine. However, I do not like to include things from different projects/upstream in a single package. Regards, Stéphane [1] http://traceroute.sourceforge.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP11Z9AAoJEOpoNuGrRBGWGXMIALsmN9JlVwyyixgPBtl7UCXr c6ewmp1rbLQ7neL8dwXU77zrNBO/Eaw4YSzQxWosBj+4sw3s7mnMHq0MXEoCouqi /067rFluZOwV0GFt/lBfi36UPfV4up2oZwV++b1zj36EVm4HZWUNnthWPFa18S9F faMTfUFh/xfQaLAl57jp0ygpzWb5owjwdN4p/7CKeHiDnsdNmhNkDEb/QTyAcw4o tHqZVQZtFjuGZfTYRhZ/N68hhEViUt8kMozUa5q4XRXvKyxGAHNSoPKk6wcccqv0 fZmcLmdUlX3ah2r4w0RShZ9+D2phrI8WZut3J9hYY7qgSKLVQppTS6xA0UViNlw= =EVYU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[2012-06-12 10:47:25 -0400] Stéphane Gaudreault:
The new traceroute seems to have a more active upstream maintainer and it is the version included in most major distro [1].
Does it have a public repository? I can't seem to find one.
I do not have a strong opinion about uploading it in [core] or [extra], so [core] could be fine. However, I do not like to include things from different projects/upstream in a single package.
Sure. My main concern is that ping and traceroute stay in base. Then I find it simpler to provide those tools in the same package from the same upstream, rather than splitting them off - but that's also because I see nothing wrong with the current traceroute. Anyway, I've stated my opinion. Now the decision is yours. :) Cheers. -- Gaetan
participants (2)
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Stéphane Gaudreault