On Wednesday 09 June 2004 22:37, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > 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. Isn't there a way to create 1 binary that can work like the old and the new version? Depending on the name how the binary is executed, the ritgh version is choosen. So you have tcnew and a link to it called tc. If tc is executed, the old version is used, if tcnew is executed, the new version is used. I know it sounds messy ... Stef -- stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
