Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:22:33 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mark H. Wood" <> | Subject | Re: Duplicate routes |
| |
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Keith Owens wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:58:58 -0500 (EST), > "Mark H. Wood" <mwood@IUPUI.Edu> wrote: > >On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Keith Owens wrote: > >> Compare the output below from route -n and iproute list. The entries > > > >What's an "iproute"? Is that anything like "ip route", which a few people > >have been telling us to use? > > iproute, ipaddr etc. are symbolic links to the ip command. iproute is > equivalent to ip route. And yes, this is the code described in policy > routing.
Since the ip command kit has no installation procedure and no usage documentation, there are no such symlinks on my system. How would I have known to do this? Was any of this announced anywhere? Did I accidentally sleep through November and miss it all?
I'm starting to understand what happened, but I feel like I've been eavesdropping on a private conversation. I don't recall any discussion of breaking the more-or-less standard tools and providing an incompatible replacement, or of making incompatible changes to the kernel. It may all be fine work, but lots of us never heard about it. I'm particularly worried that so many of the "usual suspects" on Linux-Kernel never caught wind of these significant changes to the kernel. Who should be getting the word out, and how can we encourage him to do so?
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Specializing in unusual perspectives for more than twenty years.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |