On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:21:52 +0200 Stef Coene <stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 09 June 2004 01:31, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > But should we break existing scripts?? One possibility would be to make > > things case dependant (K = 1024 and k = 1000) or something like that. > I vote for yes. > What we can do, is use an other name so the difference is clear that it's not > tc, but the new tc. Mhh, why don't call this newtc? Or tcnew? Or tc2? > So people can use tc and not change the scripts, or use tcnew and change all > scripts accordingly. I don't want to fork or make the iproute2 utilities explicitly different from earlier versions. Do we really want to repeat the mess of proc tools. But, in this case the change is actually small and contained, I haven't heard one person who would be upset by switching. So the next snapshot will use 1000's for rates and 1024 for sizes as per the standard usage. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
