At Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:44:00 +0200, Marco Gerards wrote: > > Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> >> The most important part of the patch is setting up the route, for > >> >> which no interface or utility exists. > >> > > >> > There is -g. > >> > >> Which sets the gateway, how would that help? > > > > You said there was no existing facility for setting routes, which is what > > -g does. If you have an option to set the route in a way different from > > what you can do with -g now, that still has nothing per se to do with DHCP. > > Options are about what they do, not why you want that done. > > Right, but -g does not set the route like we need it for DHCP. I > understand if you do not like the name of the option, but that does > not make it useless.
I think Roland might be suggesting that you overload the meaning of -g. Thus when the address is 0.0.0.0, instead of setting the default gateway as -g should do, you do something special. To me, that tastes just as bad as using --dhcp: -g has a meaning and I think that is inconsistent with the type of route one sets when using dhcp. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
