From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 25 16:50:03 2010 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 A80BC1065674 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 16:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AFF8FC16 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 16:50:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.33.146] (lapwing-gw-1.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.1.66]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F11F46B53; Tue, 25 May 2010 12:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <4BFBFF6A.1090807@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:50:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7DB9656A-44DF-4A37-B9A4-652451234FEE@lassitu.de> <4BFBFF6A.1090807@elischer.org> To: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: freebsd-current Current , Stefan Bethke Subject: Re: AppleTalk status 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: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:50:03 -0000 On 25 May 2010, at 17:48, Julian Elischer wrote: >> I'm working on updating net/netatalk to version 2.1 (or 2.1.1 when >> that comes out the next couple of days), and I'm wondering what >> state AppleTalk support is in these days. Is anybody still using >> it, or would now be the time to make all AppleTalk support in that >> port optional, and just focus on the file server component? >>=20 >> I haven't used AppleTalk for at least eight years now, and I don't >> quite see which setting it still would be used in nowadays... >=20 > I did the original port to freeBSD (from a netbsd port from memory) > I haven't checked recently but it was used by several companies = running legacy stuff in some industrial control situations. > In any case it's good having a working example of another protocol > as the world is getting a bit too focused on IP these days > and having a different protocol in the sources keeps us honest. FWIW, I have no intention of removing the kernel support for appletalk = (or, perhaps more properly, ethertalk). It does want to be changed to = use our link layer improvements in 8.x, but what is there today works = fine and should continue to work fine for the forseeable future. = Virtualizing for VIMAGE will probably take someone a couple of = afternoons, and I tentatively plan to do it "at some point" before 9.0. Robert=