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

Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Can we collaborate about it?
> 
> Okay - but I don't see much left for me to help with.
> 
> [...]
> >> 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.
> 
> Yes, I meant to imply that it must be okay to describe these utilities
> as "controlling" things *because* that is a permanent part of all
> their names.
>  
> >> 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?
> 
> I'm used to this list being used to coordinate changes that are going
> through Debian channels, but if you're happy to go straight to
> upstream that's probably a good idea.
> 
> > What do you think of
> > https://github.com/ZjYwMj/systemd/compare/systemd:systemd:main...man-pages-fixes
> > ?
> 
> It looks like a sensible minimal fix.  You could miss out the commas
> in "query, or modify," but it's fine either way.
> 

Thank you.
I took out the commas, and submitted
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/27264. Which is only for networkctl. 
I leave aside anything else discussed here, at least for now.

--
u34

> (To me the most baffling of the systemd -ctl commands is busctl, but
> if the intended users of busctl are developers who are trying to debug
> software communicating over DBus then perhaps it all makes sense to
> them.)
> -- 
> JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
> 	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package