On 09/15/14 23:19, Ashwini Sharma wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Earlier had sent a version of ip, which had many TODO items. > Attached is the updated version, having complete support for > ip _link_, _addr_, _rule_, _route_ and _tunnel_ options.
The reason this got trapped in the spam filter (along with about 200 other messages since the last time I went rhoguh and deleted them) is the command's larger than the message size limit. This is an enormous command, and there's a certain amount of "bracing myself to read through it". There's also the amount of time ifconfig took to clean up, and here's a new implementation that doesn't share code with that. And last year a very ineffective advocate for "ip" was here doing his best to convince everyone we really didn't need it: http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2013-April/000825.html The end result of that big long thread was me saying "if somebody wants to send a patch, I'll look, but I'm not writing it myself". Now somebody has sent a patch. Sigh. I should just put this in pending and cut a release (I'm behind but haven't finished ping or the user*.c and group*.c cleanups yet), but I really don't want two implementations of the same functionality. (If I did ip, I was going to do it as a wrapper around "ifconfig" and "route" and similar...) Part of the problem is I don't use ip, I use the ifconfig side of things, so I'm not personally familiar with the command syntax of the ip versions, so it's harder for me to test them. I have to learn a whole second set of commands well enough to find corner cases that break. This is why it has not yet bubbled to the top of my todo list. Lemme revisit this after I get 0.4.10 out. Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
