Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:18:44 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r230207 - in head/sys: netinet sys Message-ID: <20120119191844.GA12760@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120119164627.GA42205@reks> References: <201201160953.q0G9rPp8026625@svn.freebsd.org> <20120119143837.GA28308@reks> <20120119145132.GZ12760@FreeBSD.org> <20120119164627.GA42205@reks>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:46:27PM +0200, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: G> > I wouldn't claim compatibility for the commands that didn't work very well. G> > I won't also name Linux, since these commands predate the Linux itself. G> G> I meant that SIOCSIFADDR is default (if not the only) way to set G> interface address on linux. If this is true, then I am almost sure that their SIOCSIFADDR is not the command I have removed, but something similar to our SIOCAIFADDR. Our SIOCSIFADDR added a classful prefix on the interface. G> > Do you use them? Or do you know software that use them? G> G> I do and I've seen other examples of using SIOCSIF*ADDR with BSD G> specific tweaks. Although I must admit that nowadays the most common way G> of configuring interface is to call /sbin/ifconfig. Where did you see that examples? In the "TCP/IP Illustrated"? G> It's not a big deal for me, I have no problem with replacing them on G> FreeBSD. FreeBSD is not even officially supported platform for the G> product and I build/test on FreeBSD solely for the purpose of avoiding G> linuxisms and platform specific behaviour. Let's hope it won't break for G> somebody else :) I'm pretty sure it will not break anyone, except for people still living in Internet with classdful addressing. Do you know any? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119191844.GA12760>