From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 17 05:21:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B059016A4CE; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B99143D39; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:21:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i2HDLqkj001340; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:21:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:22:07 +0800 (CST) Message-Id: <20040317.212207.36604796.imp@bsdimp.com> To: ru@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20040317130742.GB74358@ip.net.ua> References: <200403152224.i2FMOSQh002806@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040317.204301.67883204.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040317130742.GB74358@ip.net.ua> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: fjoe@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules Makefile src/usr.sbin Makefile src/share/man/man4/man4.i386 Makefile arl.4 src/sys/conf files.i386 src/sys/i386/conf NOTES src/sys/dev/arl if_arl.c if_arl_isa.c if_arlreg.h src/sys/modules/arl Makefile ... X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:21:56 -0000 In message: <20040317130742.GB74358@ip.net.ua> Ruslan Ermilov writes: : arlconfig(8) looks functionally identical to wicontrol(8), not to ifconfig(8). : As such, it's probably best to rename it to arlconfig(8). I agree it doesn't : make sense to duplicate options already provided by ifconfig(8), but it looks : there are some options (and in wicontrol(8) too) that aren't supported by : ifconfig(8), these should be kept. (While wicontrol(8) has a history, this : tool doesn't, so no point for duplicating ifconfig(8) functionality.) if it is functionally equivolent to wicontrol, then we need to abstract further. At the very least, it should implement a wicontrol interface so that we don't need yet another driver control program in the tree. The awi driver managed to do this, and it has nothing at all to do with Lucent hardware. Warner