Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:04:13 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "ifconfig -vlandev" syntax Message-ID: <20050928110413.GE86457@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20050925213741.GG15981@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050922104104.GA13539@comp.chem.msu.su> <20050925213741.GG15981@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 02:37:41PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:41:05PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > > As our ifconfig(8) is growing more options for special interface > > types, inconsistencies sneak into their syntax. In particular, > > -vlandev takes a useless argument (vlan(4) cannot attach to more > > than one parent anyway) while, e.g., -carpdev doesn't need one. > > Personally, I like the latter since having to type unneeded words > > on the command line annoys me. Do you think that making -vlandev > > need no arguments in CURRENT would break many existing things? > > I agree the argument is useless. Unfortunatly, it's going to be hard to > deprecate the old syntax so we may need to keep it around. Alas, there doesn't seem to exist an easy way to support both syntaxes in the ifconfig(8) parameter parser. Perhaps we can survive the pain of syntax change in CURRENT only, with a heads-up message sent, release notes updated, etc? I wonder if many people use "ifconfig -vlandev XXX" in automated tools. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050928110413.GE86457>