On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > > Making one of the portable versions the default ping for Debian seems
> > > > > like the
> > > > > right thing to do.
> > > > Please explain why.
> > > Consistancy.
> > Losing important features to be consistent with unrel
On 23-Oct-05, 09:42 (CDT), Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 23, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Oct 23, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Making one of the portable versions the default ping
On Oct 23, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Oct 23, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Making one of the portable versions the default ping for Debian seems
> > > like the
> > > right thing to do.
> > Please explain w
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Oct 23, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Making one of the portable versions the default ping for Debian seems like
> > the
> > right thing to do.
> Please explain why.
Consistancy. The alternatives system could be used if someone
On Oct 23, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making one of the portable versions the default ping for Debian seems like
> the
> right thing to do.
Please explain why.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>How about naming the packages netkit-ping and iputils-ping,
>respectively? Oh, wait, we have that already...
>
>iputils-arping also has a more portable, alternative implementation
>(cf. package arping). That leaves us with tracepath that indeed appears
>to be Linux-only at
6 matches
Mail list logo