Re: Doesn't introspection limited to passive examination, withoutactions?

Can we collaborate about it?

Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Refering to 
> > https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/systemd/networkctl.1.en.html .
> > The DESCRIPTION section of the networkctl manual page, at the top of the 
> > page, writes about introspection. Does introspection correctly describes 
> > actions such as delete, up, down, reconfigure, reload? Those actions are
> > mentioned as possible commands at the COMMANDS section. 
> > Can someone who read only the DESCRIPTION assume networkctl only offers 
> > a simple dump of the network interface states?
> 
> I think you're right; the synopsis
> 
>  networkctl - Query the status of network links
> 
> is also misleading, and should at least say "query or modify" - more
> probably just "control".
> 
> There's no good reason for networkctl(1) to mention the word
> "introspection" at all; that word is used these days as a technical
> term for something unrelated.  What "networkctl status" does isn't
> even introspection in the normal non-jargon sense, since it doesn't
> check anything internal to networkctl itself, it reports the status of
> the machine's network interfaces (even if they're all managed by
> ifupdown).
> 
> Manpages for other utilities in the systemd -ctl family say:
> 
>  bootctl - Control EFI firmware boot settings and manage boot loader
>  busctl - Introspect the bus
>  hostnamectl - Control the system hostname
>  journalctl - Query the systemd journal
>  localectl - Control the system locale and keyboard layout settings
>  loginctl - Control the systemd login manager
>  systemctl - Control the systemd system and service manager
>  timedatectl - Control the system time and date
> 
> I would suggest that busctl, journalctl, and networkctl should all
> standardise on "Control" (if it isn't accurate, they're misnamed!),
> and they should especially avoid adding redundant extra syllables to
> the word "inspect".
> 

I believe that changing the names are far fetching, since they were get 
used to by a lot of users. I think they will not accpet it. I also believe 
that small, to the point, fixes are more managable for them.

> The bugreports would only be priority "wishlist", though.

Since the public upstream repository is at github, I headed there. Do you 
think filing a debian bug is a better approach?

What do you think of
https://github.com/ZjYwMj/systemd/compare/systemd:systemd:main...man-pages-fixes
?

--
u34

> -- 
> JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
> 	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package