From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 29 08:54:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3735106564A; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:54:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6378FC16; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:54:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4400F3911C; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:54:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix, from userid 1203) id 5F93810059; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:54:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA3210055; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:54:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:54:53 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Tijl Coosemans , Qing Li In-Reply-To: <200812281613.49404.tijl@ulyssis.org> Message-ID: References: <20081227202117.F3B14341A3@cavin02.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be> <200812281613.49404.tijl@ulyssis.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.99 (LSU 1142 2008-08-13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:17:57 +0000 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: arp-v2 has been committed X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:54:53 -0000 On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Saturday 27 December 2008 21:21:25 Qing Li wrote: >> I believe all of the affected ports have been updated to >> include the conditional blocks around RTF_LLINFO. emulators/wine has not been adjusted yet, pending this discussion. > Yes, and I'm OK with this. It's just that this makes FreeBSD 8 > a special case. Agreed. > If it's easy to reintroduce it and become backwards compatible I > would do it. Like Julian said, you can give it the value 0. It > would be nice if the kernel tested for the old value as well, > perhaps behind an #ifdef COMPAT_FREEBSD*. That way when people > upgrade to FreeBSD 8 all their ports compiled under FreeBSD 7 > keep working. What of this will be doable, Qing? I guess Tijl and me need to understand when/whether/what to submit to Wine upstream... Gerald