[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-inetutils] regarding route
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-inetutils] regarding route |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:41:59 -0500 |
> So I'm reworking route (for the third time since I've always
> manage to misplace it). Question is, should we support the old
> syntax for route?
What is "old syntax"? Do you mean "route add|del ... netmask ...",
etc? If so, then definitely - yes, we should.
Ok, hopefully I won't misplace it again... :-)
> Currently, I'm ignoring that, but before I go about adding it to
> inetutils, the easy (and right since it will keep the real
> version clean) solution is to have a shell script wrapper that
> would work like `the old' route, what do people think?
Let's split the task. Do it your way and I'll add the "old syntax"
later, as I did for ifconfig.
I never really liked the way ifconfig's argument parsing was done,
mostly since it conflates lots of parts into a jumbled up soup. Would
have rather seen specific wrappers for each platform instead.