From owner-freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 14:35:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFD916A420 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:35:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) Received: from mout0.freenet.de (mout0.freenet.de [IPv6:2001:748:100:40::2:2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C4B13C458 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:35:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) Received: from [195.4.92.13] (helo=3.mx.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IyTRE-0005X2-Lq for freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:35:24 +0100 Received: from mb5ec.m.pppool.de ([89.49.181.236]:63045 helo=peedub.jennejohn.org) by 3.mx.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.68 #1) id 1IyTRE-0003P0-Gw for freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:35:24 +0100 Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:35:23 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071201153523.15682288@peedub.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <47514B53.9000409@ovb.ch> References: <474EE92C.3000406@merlin-home.dtdns.net> <200711291751.25402.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20071130084253.R53707@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <47514B53.9000409@ovb.ch> Organization: DENX Softwre Engineering GmbH X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Support of ISDN Subsystem under Freebsd 6.x/7.x - amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: gary.jennejohn@freenet.de List-Id: Using ISDN with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:35:27 -0000 On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:53:55 +0100 Oliver von Bueren wrote: > I still don't know why nobody bothers to include the i4b by HPS into the > main tree. I couldn't use the built-in stack since ages because of the > lack of proper card support for passive cards with CAPI support, which > is working in his version. Active ones might be better in the tree. > HPS has a rather arcane coding style which makes it hard to maintain his code in the tree. We don't want code in the tree which can be maintained/understood by only one external developer. As a port it would probably be OK, but it might be difficult to integrate it cleanly. Still, there are other ports which touch the kernel, so it should be doable. AFAIK HPS hasn't considered this possiblility. -- Gary Jennejohn