Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:31:06 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Zhenlei Huang <zlei@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Any real usage of sppp(4) on architectures other than i386 or amd64 ? Message-ID: <Z4bJihbQUmD0cjpN@cell.glebi.us> In-Reply-To: <0DC91E3B-DDB4-43ED-866E-3DA02BBA1241@FreeBSD.org> References: <0DC91E3B-DDB4-43ED-866E-3DA02BBA1241@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 07:25:26PM +0800, Zhenlei Huang wrote: Z> I just fixed one long standing bug of sppp(4) [1]. During the testing I found ng_sppp(4) depends on this module. Unfortunately sppp(4) is only enabled on i386 and amd64 by default but ng_sppp(4) is enabled on all architectures. So on architectures other than i386 and amd64 `kldload ng_sppp` will never succeed. Z> Z> I suppose sppp(4) is rarely used nowadays so I'm planing to conditionally build ng_sppp(4) only on i386 and amd64. Is there still real usage of sppp(4) on other architectures ? Z> Z> 1. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173002 I would claim there is no usage of neither sppp(4) nor ng_sppp(4) on any architecture in a very long term. Last time I run this kind of network framing in 2004 and in that times the right way to do it was either pure negraph(4) graph based on ng_cisco(4) or ports/net/mpd + ng_ppp(4). Don't waste your time on this code. -- Gleb Smirnoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Z4bJihbQUmD0cjpN>