> So I'm reworking route (for the third time since I've always > manage to misplace it). Question is, should we support the old > syntax for route?
What is "old syntax"? Do you mean "route add|del ... netmask ...", etc? If so, then definitely - yes, we should. Ok, hopefully I won't misplace it again... :-) > Currently, I'm ignoring that, but before I go about adding it to > inetutils, the easy (and right since it will keep the real > version clean) solution is to have a shell script wrapper that > would work like `the old' route, what do people think? Let's split the task. Do it your way and I'll add the "old syntax" later, as I did for ifconfig. I never really liked the way ifconfig's argument parsing was done, mostly since it conflates lots of parts into a jumbled up soup. Would have rather seen specific wrappers for each platform instead.
