Re: +1 (was Re: netcfg: proposal for template change)
Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 1/12/20 1:05 AM, Holger Wansing wrote: > > Holger Levsen wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:11:13PM +, Justin B Rye wrote: > >>> [...] It might be better to simplify in the general direction of > >>> > >>> The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. > >>> Please consult your network administrator and try again. > >> > >> that. (+1) > > > > What about home users? > > That string does not work for them ad-hoc ... > > Nearly every version of Windows uses that phrase though :). Ok, so I will go with above proposal. (even if something like "Windows has it too, so that's ok" usually is not an argument ;-) ) Thanks Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: +1 (was Re: netcfg: proposal for template change)
On 1/12/20 1:05 AM, Holger Wansing wrote: > Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:11:13PM +, Justin B Rye wrote: >>> [...] It might be better to simplify in the general direction of >>> >>> The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. >>> Please consult your network administrator and try again. >> >> that. (+1) > > What about home users? > That string does not work for them ad-hoc ... Nearly every version of Windows uses that phrase though :). -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: +1 (was Re: netcfg: proposal for template change)
Hi, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:11:13PM +, Justin B Rye wrote: > > [...] It might be better to simplify in the general direction of > > > > The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. > > Please consult your network administrator and try again. > > that. (+1) What about home users? That string does not work for them ad-hoc ... Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
+1 (was Re: netcfg: proposal for template change)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:11:13PM +, Justin B Rye wrote: > [...] It might be better to simplify in the general direction of > > The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. > Please consult your network administrator and try again. that. (+1) -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: netcfg: proposal for template change
Hi, Justin B Rye wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 22:01 +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > >> I would like to propose a change on a template in netcfg: > > [...] > >> _Description: Malformed IP address > >> The IP address you provided is malformed. It should be in the form > >> - x.x.x.x where each 'x' is no larger than 255 (an IPv4 address), or a > >> - sequence of blocks of hexadecimal digits separated by colons (an IPv6 > >> + x.x.x.x where each 'x' is an integer not larger than 255 (for an IPv4 > >> address), or > >> + ::::::: each '' being a block of > >> hexadecimal digits (for an IPv6 > >> address). Please try again. > > [...] > > > > But IPv6 addresses do not have to look like that: leading zeroes in > > each group can be omitted and a run of all-zero groups in the middle > > can be omitted. > > > > And really I think the tiny proportion of users who need to enter > > static network configuration will already know what an IP address looks > > like. > > In fact it might be more likely to be helpful if it said: > >The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please >try again; for instance when setting up an IPv4 local area network >you might use an address such as "192.168.0.1". > > On the other hand if they specifically want to configure an IPv6 > address, they've probably just typed it in wrong (again). I just see something of an inconsistency here, when comparing the IPv4 against the IPv6 variant: the IPv4 case is described more or less in detail, while IPv6 is not. And since IPv6 is still new to most people (power users or system admins might be an exception here), I thought it might make sense to give more details for the IPv6 case too. On the long term, IPv6 will become the default for all of us, I assume... Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: netcfg: proposal for template change
Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 22:01 +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: >> I would like to propose a change on a template in netcfg: > [...] >> _Description: Malformed IP address >> The IP address you provided is malformed. It should be in the form >> - x.x.x.x where each 'x' is no larger than 255 (an IPv4 address), or a >> - sequence of blocks of hexadecimal digits separated by colons (an IPv6 >> + x.x.x.x where each 'x' is an integer not larger than 255 (for an IPv4 >> address), or >> + ::::::: each '' being a block of >> hexadecimal digits (for an IPv6 >> address). Please try again. > [...] > > But IPv6 addresses do not have to look like that: leading zeroes in > each group can be omitted and a run of all-zero groups in the middle > can be omitted. > > And really I think the tiny proportion of users who need to enter > static network configuration will already know what an IP address looks > like. In fact it might be more likely to be helpful if it said: The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please try again; for instance when setting up an IPv4 local area network you might use an address such as "192.168.0.1". On the other hand if they specifically want to configure an IPv6 address, they've probably just typed it in wrong (again). -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Re: netcfg: proposal for template change
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 22:01 +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to propose a change on a template in netcfg: [...] > _Description: Malformed IP address > The IP address you provided is malformed. It should be in the form > - x.x.x.x where each 'x' is no larger than 255 (an IPv4 address), or a > - sequence of blocks of hexadecimal digits separated by colons (an IPv6 > + x.x.x.x where each 'x' is an integer not larger than 255 (for an IPv4 > address), or > + ::::::: each '' being a block of > hexadecimal digits (for an IPv6 > address). Please try again. [...] But IPv6 addresses do not have to look like that: leading zeroes in each group can be omitted and a run of all-zero groups in the middle can be omitted. And really I think the tiny proportion of users who need to enter static network configuration will already know what an IP address looks like. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Anthony's Law of Force: Don't force it, get a larger hammer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: netcfg: proposal for template change
Holger Wansing wrote: > I would like to propose a change on a template in netcfg: [...] > _Description: Malformed IP address > The IP address you provided is malformed. It should be in the form > - x.x.x.x where each 'x' is no larger than 255 (an IPv4 address), or a > - sequence of blocks of hexadecimal digits separated by colons (an IPv6 > + x.x.x.x where each 'x' is an integer not larger than 255 (for an IPv4 > address), or > + ::::::: each '' being a block of > hexadecimal digits (for an IPv6 > address). Please try again. Pedantically I think there ought to be commas around , each '' being a block of hexadecimal digits, - or you could repeat the phrasing as "where each '' is a block of hexadecimal digits". > I would like to make the description of the format more clearer, especially > the IPv6 variant does not give much detailed information. > If you typed a malformed IPv6 address, that message does not give you much > help, how it should look like ... > > Any comments/objections? > > debian-l10n-english in CC for review, too. I can see why you might want to make the descriptions of dotted quads and colonic octopoids more closely parallel, but is it really useful to give this much advice and no more? Users have already been warned "if you don't know what to use here, consult your network administrator"; if they're seeing this error because they tried typing in "0.0.0.0", the rules given won't help them find an address they can use. It might be better to simplify in the general direction of The value you provided is not a usable IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please consult your network administrator and try again. -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
