From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 07:26:59 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD9E16A402 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:26:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (reverse-25.fdn.fr [80.67.176.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F56613C4A7 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:26:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd, from userid 1000) id 9810A3F1F; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:26:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:26:57 +0200 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Message-ID: <20070713072657.GA13945@zen.inc> References: <20070713053534.D31116@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070713053534.D31116@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less. Cc: "George V. Neville-Neil" , Peter Blok , FreeBSD current mailing list , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAST_IPSEC is now IPSEC, please be advised... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:26:59 -0000 On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:41:04AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > >At Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:49:37 +0200, > >Peter Blok wrote: Hi all. [KAME's IPSec removal and ipsec-tools] > I have a preliminary hackish patch. The problem is that I have other > patches in there as well. I'll have to disunite them. > > I was hoping that ipsec-tools would release earlier so that the gcc4 > compile issues would have been solved already only leaving us with the > directory changes for the #inlcude files... Ipsec-tools 0.7.0 Release (which includes gcc4 fixes) should have been released this week. We did NOT release it until now for various reasons, including the fact that I hoped we could fix this include problem for 0.7.0 release. But if it is quite simple to fix for -HEAD, which now only have netipsec/ipsec.h, it is harder to solve cleanly for older versions, which have both netinet6/ipsec.h and netipsec/ipsec.h, and on which I just don't know how to guess which one we should use. I think I'll commit today a patch to detect the case where we only have netipsec/ipsec.h (so it will compile again on -HEAD), and we'll keep the netinet6/ipsec.h Vs netipsec/ipsec.h problem as an open issue until someone gives me a clean way to decide which one we should use when we found both. Yvan. -- NETASQ http://www.netasq.com