On 24.05.2011 10:03, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2011-05-24 08:46, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> On 23.05.2011 16:39, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> Optional arguments make parsing unnecessarily harder - even more so
>>> than two-args. Right now, rateest even crashes because of it.
>>>
>>> static const struct option rateest_opts[] = {
> [...]
>>> - {.name = "rateest-bps1", .has_arg = false, .val = OPT_RATEEST_BPS1},
>>> + {.name = "rateest-bps1", .has_arg = true, .val = OPT_RATEEST_BPS1},
> [...]
>>
>> This appears to be breaking backwards compatibility.
>
> Admittedly yes, though the fact that this has remained unseen for so
> long suggests that the potential user base is very small or not yet
> existing.
I'm pretty sure this used to work at some point. Let me check history.
> In my time with users in IRC, I notice that they in particular prefer
> hard stops in parsing over silent upgrades of rules[1], so as to
> actually become aware of the change upfront. As such, I believe the
> impact is well justified.
Well, if it really was broken from the beginning I'm fine of course,
but I don't think that's case.
> [1] i.e. `diff -u rules <(xtables-main save6)` is supposed to yield
> no diff except for counters
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
