Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Peter Memishian wrote:
>> Perhaps we're going over this again and again because the original spec
>> wasn't detailed enough in covering all the background issues, and no one
>> has been able to keep up with the subsequent email discussion. As such,
>> I propose that John and I update the spec and resubmit.
>>
>
> Partly.
>
> I believe the other thing is that many of us are having trouble
> believing that this whole method is appropriate for enough cases to be
> anything close to a "general solution".
>
> I look forward to seeing an updated proposal. I hope it contains:
>
> This proposal is specifically for dladm. The method employed may
> be useful for use by other utilities, but this does not establish a
> guideline or precidence.
>
> Or something like that.
>
> When I wish upon a star...
+1.
All of my other complaints/arguments related to the attempt to extend
this case beyond dladm. Creation of a new, perhaps non-obvious, parsed
language/file format as a generic standard for everyone else to use
starts to get difficult (and probably fails the "obvious" test for fast
tracks.)
-- Garrett
