Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(wpa_supplicant article: uhm...)
(wpa_supplicant article: re)
Line 53: Line 53:
  
 
:Uhm, {{pkg|dhcpcd}}-6.2.1 (which was pushed into the ''core'' repo yesterday) actually looks at {{ic|/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf}}. I still had 6.1.0 until today (I actually checked for updates before looking at the code, but the mirrors were probably not synced yet). So I might have been trolling after all... -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 
:Uhm, {{pkg|dhcpcd}}-6.2.1 (which was pushed into the ''core'' repo yesterday) actually looks at {{ic|/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf}}. I still had 6.1.0 until today (I actually checked for updates before looking at the code, but the mirrors were probably not synced yet). So I might have been trolling after all... -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 +
::Coincidental indeed that dhcpcd update which brought the change. I looked up the [http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/info/bc4a0e922b|commit] and read over the changes. Bests for your exam.  --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:46, 7 February 2014

In this page you can list:

  • Edits that a contributor made to the wiki without a proper explanation (that is what the Summary field is for) and whose validity you lack the knowledge to judge by yourself. In this case, please add a link to the edit in question with a brief explanation why you think it should be investigated. Consider contacting the contributor to ask for an explanation, which is often an effective way to solve these issues. Please report the eventual answer (if any) below the initial report. You can also link to a discussion already started in the talk page of the edited article.
  • Links to discussions started in talk pages requesting to add, delete, or modify some content in the respective articles which you do not have sufficient knowledge to answer definitively by yourself.

Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' reports. Discussions will be deleted 3 days after closing.

See ArchWiki:Spam to report vandalism.

New templates

Just a heads-up, if you're OK with them [1] [2] , please close the report :-) -- Karol 07:42, 14 December 2011 (EST)

If we start applying them consistently in all the tables, probably adding a proper rule in Help:Style, then I'm ok with them, since coloring cells in tables is not very straightforward even with wiki syntax.
Note their Chinese counterparts have been created too: Template:是 and Template:否. Since those templates' code is very flexible, I suggest replacing them with only 2 templates, Template:Y and Template:N, which would produce "Yes" and "No" by default, but whose first optional argument would allow them to display any other string, including translations, without the need to have localized versions of each template.
Going even a bit further, since some tables use additional colors, we may base the templates' names on their color instead of their meaning, so that we would have Template:G, Template:R, Template:Y, Template:B, and if necessary also Template:P and Template:O (purple and orange, just to complete the secondary colors). These templates should require the first argument, but I think they would be easy to use anyway, for sure much easier than the current | style="color:...." | blabla.
Waiting for opinions. -- Kynikos 09:19, 15 December 2011 (EST)
This template group would also give us an excuse to delete The Status Table Series and related templates, since they have a too narrow field of application and practically just create nested tables in the end, thus giving almost no real advantage. -- Kynikos 13:13, 24 December 2011 (EST)
I support this idea. Similar to the Template:Box COLOUR templates, a series of table cell coloured templates would ensure consistency across articles. -- pointone 16:46, 19 January 2012 (EST)
So good :) However I don't consider this an urgent task, I'm linking this discussion from a new entry among my numerous template ideas in my todo list. Of course if you or someone else want to implement it, just go for it. Just reminding that the implementation should be accompanied by some related style rules.
Also note that among my template-related ideas there's one about the Box COLOR series that seems to go in the opposite direction than the cell color templates, but I think that the colors for the Note, Warning and Tip templates should be reserved for them, and not be usable in other ways.
-- Kynikos 06:47, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Jumbo frames' "Real World Examples" section

Jumbo_Frames#Real_World_Examples <-- This section doesn't seem fitting on our wiki. This section just seems to be an advertisement for jumbo frames, and I think it should be removed. And I should also note that the methodology is a bit unreliable, in my opinion. To truly test just the difference that jumbo frames makes, one should make a RAM disk so hard disk performance is completely removed from the equation. And if we really want to sell people on switching to jumbo frames, I would rather we simply provide a one-liner plus a link to a technical white paper, IEEE conference paper, etc. Does anyone else agree?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if we can really consider that section as an advertisement, however it's true that benchmarking sections are not really Arch-specific, and would probably better fit a blog or some other kind of website, which could be linked from the article. A similar article is SSD Benchmarking, for example.
On the other hand it looks like an original work and I would hesitate a bit before simply deleting it, maybe moving the "Using Jumbo Frames on Arch Linux" section more to the top could be a start. User:Graysky seems to have added that section in 2009, he may be interested in discussing also about the reliability of the methodology, but I would do that in Talk:Jumbo Frames (possibly adding e.g. Template:Accuracy to the article), since this talk page is more used for discussing recent changes reports :)
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Another alternative would be moving it to a sub-page, and having a link to it somewhere in the article.
-- thestinger (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I just found this discussion. I do not feel that the examples I posted represent an advertisement in any way. They do represent a concrete example of leveraging the topic of the page on which they are written. They are a bit dated however. I agree with the RAM disk suggestion. If I get dome time over the weekend, I might update on more modern hardware under more controlled conditions.
-- Graysky (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pacnew_and_Pacsave_Files report

Original quick report:

[3]: what was wrong with the old script that was replaced?

I think the edit in question added just some error-checking and dependency-checking. As pacnew and pacidff files are often edited as root or with sudo, the script does additional check for that. I don't think it's a questionable edit. -- Karol (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly the only parts of the new script that I like are the diffed variable that makes it easier to change it to the preferred merge tool, and the pacsave alert at the end. About the rest, I think that always checking for the availability of the required programs (~1/3 of the script) is complete overkill for such a little script: it's uselessly run every time while it could be much more Simply left to the user, who is supposed to know what applications (s)he has installed; I think mentioning the required packages in the section intro would be more appropriate. Then there's the problem of replacing gksudo with plain sudo, which IIRC at least until some time ago was a discouraged practice. -- Kynikos (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

wpa_supplicant article

User:Idomeneo1 is creating another "Beginners' Guide", this time for networking: [4]. Specifically, these two edits got me started: [5], [6]. Talking to him was not very productive, and this is not a proper correction.

Anyone got the time (and nerves) to fix the wpa_supplicant article? If not, I'll do this next week after my last exam.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, dhcpcd-6.2.1 (which was pushed into the core repo yesterday) actually looks at /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf. I still had 6.1.0 until today (I actually checked for updates before looking at the code, but the mirrors were probably not synced yet). So I might have been trolling after all... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Coincidental indeed that dhcpcd update which brought the change. I looked up the [7] and read over the changes. Bests for your exam. --Indigo (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)