On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:05 AM Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Roopa, > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:33:27 -0800 > Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Nikolay Aleksandrov > > <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > IMO the effort should be towards improving iproute2 to be > > > easier to use and more intuitive. We should be pushing people to > > > use the new tools instead of trying to find workarounds to keep the > > > old tools alive. I do like to idea of deprecating bridge-utils, but > > > I think it should be done via improving ip/bridge enough to be > > > pleasant to use. We will have to maintain this compatibility layer > > > forever if it gets accepted and we'll never get rid of brctl this > > > way. > > > > +1, we should move people away from brtcl. there is enough confusion > > among users looking at bridge attributes., > > > > ip -d link show > > bridge -d link show > > brctl > > Why is this confusing? One can simply pick the most appropriate tool. > > > Adding a 4th one to the list is not going to ease the confusion. > > Why do you say I'm adding a fourth (I guess) tool? I'm replacing the > third one.
I know. But the first two commands were supposed to replace the third one already. and they should be. So, I think its better to fix the first two instead of introducing another one. > > > We should try to make the 'ip -d link show and bridge -d link show' > > outputs better. Any suggestions there from people will be useful. > > To be honest, I don't see any problem with them -- they just do > different things. Can we extend 'bridge' tool with extra options to provide a summary view of all bridges like brctl ? Its supposed to be the netlink based tool for all bridging and hence could be a good replacement for all brctl users.
