On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 03:33:56PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Jason McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:07:14PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 2020/04/30 20:52, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > > > It it too much to expect users to read the ifconfig man page?
> > > 
> > > Printed, it is 28 pages of A4.
> > > 
> > 
> > ouch.
> > 
> > > Compare with the wifi drivers, you have to look at ifconfig(8) if
> > > you want all the details, but EXAMPLES in iwm(4) (and I think all the 
> > > other
> > > drivers) is enough for a quick bare-bones config. That seems a reasonable
> > > model.
> > > 
> > 
> > i think we have lost our way a bit with ifconfig.8. the need to avoid
> > repitition drove it, but bridge broke it.
> > 
> > we should start farming out all of the subsections back to their
> > respective pages.
> 
> Respective pages?!  The respective page for ifconfig commands *is* the
> ifconfig page.  The drivers impliment various lowlevel and system
> behaviours, but ifconfig is documenting the commands.
> 

there is more than one way to do it. that's all.

> > umb.4 is one screenful, but how to use it with
> > ifconfig is at the end of ifconfig.8. that can;t be optimal.
> 
> Since the beginning of umb, I've begged for it to stop being
> a such special snowflake, and to search for common functionality with
> other drivers, to hide the specialness.
> 
> But the previous comment remains.  These are ifconfig commands.
> They belong in the ifconfig manual page.  We don't describe ls options
> in filesystem manual pages, we describe them in the ls man page.
> 
> > of course there's an issue, and it's a big one: IEEE 802.11. farming
> > that out would inflate a lot of pages, and require care to keep
> > consistent.
> 
> It simply makes no sense.  Driver options aren't being explained.
> All of those drivers have interfaces to low-level network stack.
> The network stack is told what to do with the ifconfig command,
> using ifconfig options.  The docs are in the right place.
> 

since you disagree, it won;t happen.

but i don;t agree that the docs are in the right place - there is
no "right place". farming it out would solve some of ifconfig's
problems, and replace them with some other. it's a trade off. that's
all. i think the trade off would be worth it.

an analogy: carp documents some sysctls. but you use sysctl to set them.

jmc

Reply via email to