Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 05:33:25 +0800 From: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libifconfig non-private in 13? Message-ID: <CAKBkRUzV2EAhFUD%2B=Gcn6zkEuzVJO_t8V2SSWowkr2XeFDdzKg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20201226211810.g4ll4ow23fitmxdo@ivaldir.net> References: <1EB6D7ED-F370-42EA-AC66-93D8BC96F29C@FreeBSD.org> <20201226211810.g4ll4ow23fitmxdo@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 5:18 AM Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote= : > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:02:00PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Libifconfig was marked as private (and experimental) back in 2016. > > It=E2=80=99s since made some strides and has grown a few users. Ifconfi= g now depends > > on it as well. > > > > While it=E2=80=99s far from finished it=E2=80=99d be more useful for so= me users if it were > > public. That would at least imply some level of API/ABI stability, whic= h is > > why I=E2=80=99m bringing it up here before pulling the trigger. > > > > Does anyone see any reasons to not do this? > > > > I would go the otherway around, any reason to make it public yet? if yes = they go > ahead, if no keep it private ;) I would say it is nice to have some scripting language bindings to it, although I'm not sure if this is possible and a feasible usage. Best, Li-Wen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKBkRUzV2EAhFUD%2B=Gcn6zkEuzVJO_t8V2SSWowkr2XeFDdzKg>