> In that case I misunderstood you, sorry. What would be a better name?
Each option should describe what it does. If you are adding an option that
sets up routing in a way not described by -g, then give that option a name
saying what it actually does.
__
subscripe
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
At Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:44:00 +0200,
Marco Gerards wrote:
>
> Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> The most important part of the patch is setting up the route, for
> >> >> which no interface or utility exists.
> >> >
> >> > The
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Right, but -g does not set the route like we need it for DHCP. I
>> understand if you do not like the name of the option, but that does
>> not make it useless.
>
> I never said it was useless. I said it was poorly named. It probably also
> overloads
> Right, but -g does not set the route like we need it for DHCP. I
> understand if you do not like the name of the option, but that does
> not make it useless.
I never said it was useless. I said it was poorly named. It probably also
overloads too many settings.
__
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> The most important part of the patch is setting up the route, for
>> >> which no interface or utility exists.
>> >
>> > There is -g.
>>
>> Which sets the gateway, how would that help?
>
> You said t
Michael Banck wrote:
My translator setup is made for Debian and it has some sample boot
scripts tha start up egd and compile my translator.
You seem to have modified egd. Any chance of getting this applied
upstream? That would make packaging simpler as I was about to package
egd anyway.
I think I
