From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jul 3 11: 4: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CA61517B for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id UAA59043; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:03:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Doug Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bpfilter -> bpf patches [LONG] References: <377E431F.D04C3BE9@gorean.org> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 03 Jul 1999 20:03:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: Doug's message of "Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:06:40 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug writes: > Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but are there any circumstances > where naming the kernel include file "bpf.h" would conflict with > /usr/include/net/bpf.h? I don't think so. The bpf.h created by config(8) resides in the compile directory and is only used there; the "real" bpf.h is in /sys/net/ (or /usr/include/net) and is only referred to as net/bpf.h. Besides, if there were any confusion, I wouldn't (shouldn't) have been able to build LINT and GENERIC with the patches. That said, thanks for asking - while looking into this matter I found another problem :) new patches will be available soon. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message