* Rob Landley <[email protected]> [22.09.2014 13:48]: > 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.
sorry, I was not good enough to convince everybody. [...} > 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...) the other way around, a wrapper around 'ip' - because 'ifconfig','route' etc. implements a subset of 'ip'. sharing code is an important goal and now we have a mess 8-( sorry... at the moment, there are no test defined under 'scripts/test' for ifconfig. i'am really unsure how to 'test' this command. set ip-addresses on a dummy-interface and check/screen-scrape the output of ifconfig? minor notice: the link to 'ifconfig' on http://landley.net/toybox/status.html is wrong/broken, please use http://linux.die.net/man/8/ifconfig bye, bastian _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
