From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jun  2 17:57:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA24548
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24534
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk ([158.152.17.1]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net
           id aa0628264; 3 Jun 97 1:19 BST
Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA14374;
	Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:17:16 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199706030017.BAA14374@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: Ari Suutari <ari.suutari@ps.carel.fi>
Subject: natd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 01:17:16 +0100
From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi.

Does anyone have any objections to me bringing natd into the main
source tree under libexec ?

Now that libalias is available, it would be a better idea IMHO.
The alternative is to ship natd with copies of the alias code
in the ports collection as it currently is, resulting in potential
conflicts (<alias.h> vs "alias.h" ?), and [almost] duplicate alias
code.

-- 
Brian <brian@awfulhak.org>, <brian@freebsd.org>
      <http://www.awfulhak.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....