On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 10:41 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Sebastien Roy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 01:16 +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
> >> oh... the "usage" output disagrees with the man page...
> >> silly me for not checking the man page.
> >
> > That seems like a bug in the create-bridge synopsis. I believe -R was
> > taken out of all of the subcommand synopses in the usage output because
> > is caused too much clutter and was redundant. It looks like one was
> > re-introduced with create-bridge.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I think the fact that someone felt the need to make the synopsis just
> reflect an arbitrary subset of the actual options supported reflects a
> problem in the way the synopsis is generated.
>
> In other words, I don't think it's wrong for "create-bridge" to have
> "-R" listed among its supported options.
No, but it's wrong to have some subcommands list all supported options
while other list a subset. It's inconsistent. That leads us to:
> What's wrong is that if you
> type a bad subcommand (or none at all), dladm spews away at you,
> producing 50+ lines of really ugly output on stderr. That's absurd.
>
> A bad subcommand should just cause a list of valid subcommands --
> *without* options.
Seems like a good idea. It should be fairly trivial to implement these
semantics.
> Only a valid subcommand with bad options (or with
> the special "-h" or "-?" options) should cause the options for that
> subcommand to be printed.
That part works:
strat:~$ dladm create-bridge -?
dladm: unrecognized option '-?'
usage: create-bridge [-R <root-dir>] [-P <protect>] [-p <priority>]
[-m <max-age>] [-h <hello-time>] [-d <forward-delay>]
[-f <force-protocol>] [-l <link>]... <bridge>
-Seb
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
