Re: how about ifconfig?

[Jeff Bailey]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:06:45AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> I am working on a simple ifconfig for the Hurd, but I try to write it
> portable, so it can be used also on Linux and BSD. How about including it in
> ineutils, it seems to be the right place, isn't it?

My vote is yes. =)

You used to maintain the inetutils package, didn't you?  I don't see it 
on the package list.  I'm bundling up mailutils right now, do you want me 
to do inetutils as well?

> A lot of advanced features of other systems will be missing in early
> versions, but so what. Is ifconfig the best name? Are there de-facto
> standards in options or output? It's long ago I looked at bsd systems
> last time. I don't like the linux ifconfig, it's messy.

ifconfig is the right name, although the switches vary from system to 
system.

> (this is at a *very* early stage, suggestions are welcome, but nothing too
> fancy for now, if you aren't going to do the work :)

I suspect that it's best to have compatability flags for linux (to ease
replacement in Debian and RedHat.. <grin>) but not worry about it after
that. 

-- 
If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and they're free, you
don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.
 - Eben Moglen