[arch-dev-public] iputils & traceroute packaging

[Dan McGee]

Quick question for whoever is responsible:
Why on earth do we have a separate traceroute package that is not a
part of base? This seems to fit much better being in the iputils
package, although I am not familiar with the sources of these packages
and why they are developed separately.

$ pacman -Ql traceroute
traceroute /usr/bin/traceroute
traceroute /usr/man/man8/traceroute.8.gz

$ pacman -Ql iputils
iputils /bin/ping
iputils /bin/ping6
iputils /etc/protocols
iputils /etc/services
iputils /usr/man/man8/arping.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/clockdiff.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/ping.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/rarpd.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/rdisc.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/tftpd.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/tracepath.8.gz
iputils /usr/man/man8/traceroute6.8.gz
iputils /usr/sbin/arping
iputils /usr/sbin/clockdiff
iputils /usr/sbin/rarpd
iputils /usr/sbin/rdisc
iputils /usr/sbin/tftpd
iputils /usr/sbin/tracepath
iputils /usr/sbin/tracepath6
iputils /usr/sbin/traceroute6

What I find really weird is the inclusion of traceroute6 in iputils.

This all came up while going about "fixing" this bug:
<http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6725>

I don't want to make mtr setuid unless we are going to make traceroute
suid. mtr > traceroute > ping, so it should be at no higher of a level
than the one below it. What should we be installing programs like this
as? I think it makes sense to have ping and traceroute available to a
user, so maybe they should all be SUID, currently traceroute6 is not.

Comments and thoughts appreciated.

-Dan