Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:09:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Paolo Pisati <piso@freebsd.org> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can't link kernel after recent libalias commits? Message-ID: <20061231150906.U7974@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20061231024203.GA8147@tin.it> References: <20061230195219.GD64111@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20061230214321.GG64111@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20061230214609.GA6996@tin.it> <200612302304.39194.max@love2party.net> <20061231024203.GA8147@tin.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:04:33PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: >> On Saturday 30 December 2006 22:46, Paolo Pisati wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 01:43:21PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote: >>>> Note that this was for a kernel that uses ipfw, but not natd (ref. >>>> src/sys/conf/NOTES). >>> >>> my mistake, i'll write an entry for UPDATING. >> >> Shouldn't it still be possible to build a kernel with IPFW but without >> LIBALIAS? i.e. instead of a UPDATING entry you should just wrap the >> libalias entry points in IPFW - or am I misunderstanding what you are >> saying? > > with my last commit, LIBALIAS became mandatory for IPFW, and this adds 40kb > (-O nocona) to my kernel size. > > If it's really an issue, i can change it. Yes -- I'd prefer it if we could make LIBALIAS optional for IPFW, similar to dummynet, ipdivert, etc. Is this something done without too much trouble? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061231150906.U7974>