[Toybox] missing tc from iproute2 implementation

[Rob Landley]

On 1/21/21 7:35 PM, Kyle Sanderson wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I asked a couple weeks ago on IRC but never got a note back on this one :-(.
> 
> I'm planning on shipping a networking environment using toybox. Coming
> from  busybox, I expected iproute2 (tc in particular) to be partially
> present in the tree. I can't find a switch in the makefile, code in
> the tree, and looking at the roadmap doesn't have it listed.

This is the first request for that command, and it's not one I've used before.
I'm happy to add it to the roadmap, but it probably goes in the post-1.0 bucket
unless somebody submits a starting implementation and some test cases.

> I'm not sure if these are by request, or was just missed when adding
> ip (which is still in pending). Can I help? Is this desired? Am I
> chasing an ancient ghost and there's a better way now? :-).

I use ifconfig and route and so on, I personally lump the ip command in with
systemd as against the unix philosophy (commands that do one thing and do it
well, connected together by scripts or pipes) but people want the other API and
I got a submission from external developers. Ideally I'd like to unify the
backend plumbing so the ip api and the standalone command API could use the same
functions, but I haven't done the analysis yet.

> It's all good regardless, just trying to see the best option to move
> forward with the project.

I'm closing in on a 1.0 release but it's an "if I were doing this full-time I
might be able to finish by the end of this year" sort of thing. Right now I'm
doing shell development (current refactoring everything to add function() calls,
I had my layering wrong because it needs _multiple_ context stacks). That's my
big time-and-energy sink for the moment, I'm reluctant to open another major can
of worms until that's finished and promoted into defconfig.

For the moment, I think you're going to need some commands out of iproute2 if
you want that. Sorry.

> Kyle.

Rob