Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 10:41 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
>> Sebastien Roy wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 01:16 +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
>>>> oh... the "usage" output disagrees with the man page...
>>>> silly me for not checking the man page.
>>> That seems like a bug in the create-bridge synopsis. I believe -R was
>>> taken out of all of the subcommand synopses in the usage output because
>>> is caused too much clutter and was redundant. It looks like one was
>>> re-introduced with create-bridge.
>> *sigh*
>>
>> I think the fact that someone felt the need to make the synopsis just
>> reflect an arbitrary subset of the actual options supported reflects a
>> problem in the way the synopsis is generated.
>>
>> In other words, I don't think it's wrong for "create-bridge" to have
>> "-R" listed among its supported options.
>
> No, but it's wrong to have some subcommands list all supported options
> while other list a subset. It's inconsistent. That leads us to:
Agreed. But, as Darren rightly points out, it's also inconsistent to
have the summary fail to print out options that *are* accepted, even if
they are "common."
It's important at least because not all subcommands actually accept
those options. Some ("show-*" comes to mind) just cannot do "-R".
>> What's wrong is that if you
>> type a bad subcommand (or none at all), dladm spews away at you,
>> producing 50+ lines of really ugly output on stderr. That's absurd.
>>
>> A bad subcommand should just cause a list of valid subcommands --
>> *without* options.
>
> Seems like a good idea. It should be fairly trivial to implement these
> semantics.
That's my point -- the wrong problem was "fixed."
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
