Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:22:02 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: rpaulo@gmail.com, julian@elischer.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org, rizzo@iet.unipi.it, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp) Message-ID: <49ab42ca.YZ1mfcCDO0pvdDhv%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> References: <20090301153010.GA58942@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org> <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller > >> files to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would > >> also like to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) > >> to a better place. > >> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? > >> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 > >> files related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move > >> them (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers) > >> to a separate subdirectory ? > > > > for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in > > their own subdirectories. > > Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's > doable. > > SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a > "moving nightmare". Perhaps everything can be moved, if hardlinks or symlinks are left in sys/netinet for those parts (mostly .h files, presumably) which have too much legacy to be moved outright.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49ab42ca.YZ1mfcCDO0pvdDhv%perryh>