[BusyBox 0000980]: patch to avoid "broadcast +" syntax

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

Denis Vlasenko ha scritto:

> 
> I just tried 1.1.3 and it works for me too, without any patching.
>

  The only thing you have demonstrated is bb-1.1.3 with or without my 
patch works well on YOUR system while works different if is used on 
others systems for example mines.
  This should convinced yourself that my patch AT LEAST do not introduce 
any bugs or any different changes in "just working system" and fix only 
the problem in which systems it happens.
  You embraced the opposite conclusion, instead: it is not usefull!
  So why did I felt the need to have a patch which doesn't do anything?

> I do want to fix busybox bugs, but it does not mean that I will apply
> any random patch.
> 

  I know I am pretty a newbie in delivering patches for community but 
"random" sound a little bit offensive!
  ;-)

  Rob has a great experience about a lot of systems but he did not used 
to listen the others just because in the 99% of the cases he was right 
or better... so he did not care patches because one day he would 
rewritten the entire applet (and he did sometimes).
  Under my point of view things are not changed at all: now patches are 
under feedback but they did not still applied because "on your desktop 
system everything seem works fine".
  Good for me too but why desktop users have to use bb when they 
probably are dreaming a good 3D layer for kde or gnome, instead?

  Anyway I do not want waste your time in discussion about this patch.
  I think just few people could happily/easily put their hands in 
ifconfig without destroying or rewriting it as whole. So ifconfig is not 
going to be changed in the near future. So my patch will apply cleanly 
in THAT systems in which it makes the difference. If the people who are 
going to build THAT systems have to apply my patch THEY will appreciate 
my work much more than if it would anonymously accepted in bb.
  ;-)

  Finally I think not all NIC are the same: a NIC could be smart enough 
to set broadcast by itself as a useful feature in the today's desktop or 
server systems: why does NIC-BIOS should pollute other subnets risking 
the dummy user thinks the NIC is not performing so good? If a NIC-BIOS 
is able to boot an entire system why it should not be able to set the 
broadcast itself? But a NIC could be projected also to blindly obey or 
to save FPGA-gates as in some embedded/telecommunications systems. In 
these different systems broadcast has to be setup correctly by software.
  Does it make sense for you?

  Now you could ask: who cares about some strange embedded systems? May 
be the busybox maintainers if I am right about desktop users whose are 
all dreaming the 3D desktop instead a smaller footprint core system.
  ;-)


  Cheers,
-- 
Roberto A. Foglietta
http://roberto.foglietta.name
http://linux.genova.it