Hi David, On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:51:24 -0700 David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/19 10:00 AM, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > This script wraps 'ip' and 'bridge' tools to provide a drop-in replacement > > of the standalone 'brctl' utility. > > > > It's bug-to-bug compatible with brctl as of bridge-utils version 1.6, > > has no dependencies other than a POSIX shell, and it's less than half > > the binary size of brctl on x86_64. > > > > As many users (including myself) seem to find brctl usage vastly more > > intuitive than ip-link, possibly due to habit, this might be a lightweight > > approach to provide brctl syntax without the need to maintain bridge-utils > > any longer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> > > Acked-by: Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> > > --- > > man/man8/Makefile | 5 +- > > man/man8/ip-brctl.8 | 187 +++++++++++++++ > > misc/Makefile | 9 +- > > misc/ip-brctl.in | 572 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 770 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 man/man8/ip-brctl.8 > > create mode 100755 misc/ip-brctl.in > > I get your intent, but this seems more appropriate for you / Red Hat to > carry than something we want to distribute as part of iproute2. Sure, I could also do that, but: - me creating another project: similar maintenance burden for distribution maintainers as keeping bridge-utils around, for something that won't have any active development - carrying it in a single distribution downstream: I would have gone that way if I thought it wouldn't be useful for others. I myself use (also) distributions other than Fedora/RHEL and this would feel just... wrong Why do you think it's not appropriate to distribute this as part of iproute2? Too ugly? Bloated? Anything I can improve? I think it would be appropriate because it intimately depends on ip-link -- it's really nothing more than a helper for iproute2 tools. -- Stefano
