From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Feb 21 05:06:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA22873
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ui-gate.utell.co.uk (ui-gate.utell.co.uk [194.200.4.253])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA22864
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dibble.utell.net (dibble.utell.net [97.3.0.10]) by ui-gate.utell.co.uk (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA08730 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:05:50 GMT
Message-Id: <199702211305.NAA08730@ui-gate.utell.co.uk>
From: "Brian Somers" <brian@utell.co.uk>
To: <hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: dhcp
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:05:49 -0000
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Would I be stepping on anyones toes (asami?) if I
fix the wide-dhcp port ?  It's broken since the
disappearance of the "next" pointer in struct ifnet.

Also, when a port is "adjusted", is it normal to
send the patches back to the author - or is
there some other mechanism for doing this
(maybe it's automated) ?

TIA

Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <brian@freebsd.org> <brian@utell.co.uk>
      <http://www.awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour