Hi Stefan,

On 22 May 2017 at 05:55, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:

Hi,

I'm stumbling again over a problem introduced with the "tftpput" command and its naming, as it breaks some of the old scripts that I and others still use. As you know, when this command is enabled (which I find quite useful from time to time), "tftp" can't be used any more as an shorthand for "tftpboot".

What do others feel about this naming? Would it be acceptable, if I post a patch to rename this "tftpput" command into something else (e.g. netput, ethput, ...)? Or perhaps its possible to add an alias for the "tftpboot" command as "tftp", allowing the usage of all 3 commands:

tftpboot: TFTP get tftp: TFTP get tftpput: TFTP put

Thanks, Stefan

Is it possible to make tftpput come last in the order? Or put in a hack to check it in preference to tftpput? I'm not sure why tftp would be selected before tftpb?

Regards, Simon

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:

Hi,

I'm stumbling again over a problem introduced with the "tftpput" command and its naming, as it breaks some of the old scripts that I and others still use. As you know, when this command is enabled (which I find quite useful from time to time), "tftp" can't be used any more as an shorthand for "tftpboot".

What do others feel about this naming? Would it be acceptable, if I post a patch to rename this "tftpput" command into something else (e.g. netput, ethput, ...)? Or perhaps its possible to add an alias for the "tftpboot" command as "tftp", allowing the usage of all 3 commands:

tftpboot: TFTP get tftp: TFTP get tftpput: TFTP put

I'd be fine with a tftp command. Ideally we would then get rid of or phase out tftpput and instead have a "tftp put" sub-command.

No idea if there are now scripts that use tftpput that we want to avoid breaking, or is it new enough / development-focused enough that it's unlikely.

-Joe