Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro writes:
On 06/07/2014 03:03 AM, lee wrote:
Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro writes: [..] You're right, I overlooked the 'dev'.
Why doesn't the error message simply say "syntax error" and perhaps even points out that "dev" might be missing?
Because the program "ip" is pretty cryptic, despite being way more powerful than most people know
The program is too powerful and cryptic to print reasonable error messages ...
IIRC, I've been reading that route shall be replaced with ip, and I don't like that idea. Route is sufficiently confusing and works fine.
There is no 'to' in the configuration file anywhere, and saying that "eth0" might be "a garbage" isn't helpful in any way. This isn't any better than failing silently or just printing "error".
Each line of the route-eth* file(s) is passed ad-literam to ip route commands so all error messages that you see come from ip. Examine /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-routes for details. In your case, you should test the content of route-eth* by using: ip route add $EachLineOneByOne
I checked if there is a 'to' in the file when I got that message, and there was none.
I would like to make a bug report about this so that the useless error message may be changed. But what package should the report refer to?
You could file a RFE either against iproute which actually triggers the messages you've seen or against initscripts (ifup-routes is provided by it - you could ask for a better parser ).
Thanks :) Improving ip so that it can print useful error messages seems to make more sense than involving a special parser for the particular purpose of these initscripts.