Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:47:37 +0400
From:      Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>
To:        Ragnar Lonn <raglon@packetfront.com>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: "ifconfig -vlandev" syntax
Message-ID:  <20050929124736.GB73604@comp.chem.msu.su>
In-Reply-To: <433BA5B4.7020506@packetfront.com>
References:  <20050922104104.GA13539@comp.chem.msu.su> <20050925213741.GG15981@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050928110413.GE86457@comp.chem.msu.su> <433BA5B4.7020506@packetfront.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:28:36AM +0200, Ragnar Lonn wrote:
> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >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
> 
> You could always introduce a command-line switch that enabled the new 
> syntax ;)

What I'd like to do is to get rid of bogus command-line arguments
so that I, as well as the others, could type only what is actually
needed ;-)

-- 
Yar



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050929124736.GB73604>