Actually, I'd say that issue/bug filed two years ago _does_ make a strong case that the current man page is insufficient, that it's actually the current man page that's full of ambiguous language and "weasel words".
But you may make a good point that perhaps nobody has submitted a good patch yet -- you're right that issue isn't a good patch, just an invitation to enter into a discussion toward one (an invitation that doesn't seem to have been taken up, at least on the issue tracker).
One would hope that the actual maintainers of the kernel subsystems would feel responsibility to improve a clearly insufficient man page. Which makes me suspect there are some underlying politics or personality conflicts going on. (Or just burn-out?)
But if all it needs is someone to write some good text -- is it really the case that none of the cryptographers who have been writing extensive blog posts about this for years care to submit a doc patch? If so, I wonder why?
Perhaps, just guessing, another potential issue is that nobody really wants to _take responsibility_ for such text, in case they make a mistake. So the existing clearly insufficient text remains. Tragedy of the open source commons?
> it's actually the current man page that's full of ambiguous language and "weasel words".
The report suggests "clarifying" what the man page means by the (completely incorrect) statement that "Users should be very economical in the amount of seed material
that they read from /dev/urandom"
Probably the reporter was just being polite, but in the
absence of other comments in the bug or any kernel developers weighing in, it just sounds
like an editorial suggestion coming from a single Linux user. Remember that the man-pages project is separate from kernel development.
Yes, it reads to me like they were just being polite. The first couple sentences make it clear they think /dev/urandom is the right tool for "daily tasks" and that the man page is misleading people into thinking otherwise.
They begin with the most indisputable ways the man page is insufficient, as a way of starting the conversation -- which was never taken up.
Perhaps an actual patch would have been just accepted? Maybe the problem is the issue-submitter assumed there was someone on the other end who understood the kernel features and was interested in discussing making the man pages better.
But you may make a good point that perhaps nobody has submitted a good patch yet -- you're right that issue isn't a good patch, just an invitation to enter into a discussion toward one (an invitation that doesn't seem to have been taken up, at least on the issue tracker).
One would hope that the actual maintainers of the kernel subsystems would feel responsibility to improve a clearly insufficient man page. Which makes me suspect there are some underlying politics or personality conflicts going on. (Or just burn-out?)
But if all it needs is someone to write some good text -- is it really the case that none of the cryptographers who have been writing extensive blog posts about this for years care to submit a doc patch? If so, I wonder why?
Perhaps, just guessing, another potential issue is that nobody really wants to _take responsibility_ for such text, in case they make a mistake. So the existing clearly insufficient text remains. Tragedy of the open source commons?