Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:51:37 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Long, Scott" <Scott_Long@adaptec.com>, re@FreeBSD.ORG, Maksim Yevmenkin <myevmenk@exodus.net>, Murray Stokely <murray@freebsdmall.com> Subject: Re: Bluetooth code Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211071349350.5860-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <035101c286a3$4a7ccf80$52557f42@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: > > In message <031401c2869f$db71b720$52557f42@errno.com>, "Sam Leffler" > writes: > > >I made a quick pass over this code. It's not clear to me why this stuff > is > > >or should be dependent on netgraph. The code looks to support a new > > >protocol domain and sockets within that domain so it would seem possible > for > > >it to stand apart from netgraph. A bluetooth implementation that was not > > >tied to netgraph would be preferrable as freebsd users would get the > > >benefits of additional (non-freebsd users) working with the code. > > > > > >Specific stuff: > > > > > >1. Why isn't btsockstat integrated into netstat? > > > > Actually, isn't netstat(8) hairy enough as it is ? > > > > I understand why btsockstat was written as a standalone program. However I > think it would be better to integrate it into the program people know to use > to view active sockets. As I mantioned elsewhere the bluetooth code has all been written to completely be standalone and not alter any existing code, even Makefiles. I agree that later when the whole code is less experimental it could be merged into netstat. In the meanwhile it makes sense to have a separate program. > > Sam > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211071349350.5860-100000>