Re: new modules consensus

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 13:26 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2004-08-12 at 14:06, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >  - gnome-nettool
> > 
> >      The discussion about this could basically be summarised as:
> > 
> >        A: its a geek tool, it doesn't belong in the desktop
> >        B: user's are really only expected to use this with an admin's 
> >           guidance, so its not a problem
> > 
> >      Jody, Seth, Calum and I seemed to find this argument fairly weak. 
> >      However, the authors, Jeff and Bastien that it should be included.
> > 
> >      I don't think you could say there's consensus here, and I'm 
> >      certainly not going to try and call it. I'd lean towards its 
> >      inclusion, though, unless it was obvious that other people felt
> >      strongly that it shouldn't be included.
> I've been looking over the code a bit as Telsa has been documented. Its
> a neat tool but it is not IMHO production ready code yet. The way it
> parses command line output isn't robust in some places (traceroute
> breaks if there is multipathing, the netstat -r functionality it parses
> on Linux is essentially compatibility glue in netstat that doesn't show
> the routing tables in detail, and so on..).
that's why we needed people to report bugs :) Could you please do so to

> I think it will be a neat tool, and a desktop tool - because often
> administrators need diagnostic tools on the box that the end user can
> operate under telephone direction. I don't think it is 2.8 material.

> (if nettool hackers want a long discussion offlist abou things like
>  linux routing tables I'm happy to help)
yes, please, we have gnome-network-list gnome org for g-nettool related
discussions, we'd really appreciate your help.
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]