On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:27 PM Paul R. Tagliamonte <paul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Heyya tech@,
>
> Please keep me on cc, I'm not subscribed
Please keep me on cc. The last message wasn't sent to me, so my In-Reply-To
is going to be wrong. I'm not subscribed to tech@.
>From the web:
> some of the relevant flags are already documented in route(8) ("Routes
> have associated flags...). the entire list is documented in route(4),
> but you have to explicitly ask for it (man 4 route)
AFAICT none of these documents which flag "h" maps to, for example.
> and again the flags with detail in netstat(8) ("The mapping between
> letters and flags is...").
I will admit I'm not smart enough to think to check netstat(8) when
looking at route(8) output, but that's a fair point.
I understand netstat.8 documenting flags defined in usr.bin/netstat/show.c,
but is the review here that we should instruct users in route.8 to look up
the flags coming from sbin/route/show.c in netstat.8 which documents
usr.bin/netstat/show.c, not sbin/route/show.c ?
I am very sympathetic to the argument that duplicating documentation
is bad, and can result in maintenance burden or out of date docs, but
surely people would be more likely to update a manpage in the same
directory as the file?
I'm OK with this going NOTABUG WONTFIX; I did find the right mappings,
but I just had to go to the source repo to find it, so I guess
selfishly I've got
the knowledge I needed. I was just trying to fix a doc bug when I had state
in memory, since I know I'd appreciate that as a fellow distro maintainer.
paultag
