Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:22:47 +0100 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Vinicius Abrahao <vinnix.bsd@gmail.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: <utmp.h> gone. All welcome <utmpx.h>. Message-ID: <20100202122247.GA82370@zeninc.net> In-Reply-To: <20100202104906.GO77705@hoeg.nl> References: <Ubi2Xd2NV2@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <20100126200537.GJ77705@hoeg.nl> <20100127105212.23f15f50@ernst.jennejohn.org> <1e31c7981002011117p225d3447h43d3b3c7796c94e2@mail.gmail.com> <20100202104426.GA82116@zeninc.net> <20100202104906.GO77705@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:49:06AM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hello Yvan, > > * VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > We're working on this, but as we have now to work with both utmp.h and > > utmpx.h (at least for FreeBSD releases and FreeBSD CURRENT), we're > > trying to find a clean way to solve the issue. > > I think the cleanest solution would be to split them off completely. > Most projects do things like: Looks like all other implementations ipsec-tools runs on have both utmp.h and utmpx.h, so I am actually considering y just switch from utmp.h to utmpx.h (for example using the patchset sent yesterday on this list), and keep a reverse patch for FreeBSD's port if OS version is "old enough". As we just use utmp.h in a single part of the code, any other solution may be very complex for just that..... Yvan.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100202122247.GA82370>