From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 10 4:16:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDE614C32 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 04:16:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5731CA8; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:56 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Boris Popov Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NetWare client in -current In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:51:36 +0700." Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:56 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <19990910111556.BC5731CA8@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Boris Popov wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > > Is there any reason to not have it as a port? > > > > The only possible candidate for contrib'ifying I could see would be mount_n wfs > > because building it without the kernel source could be a problem, but the r est > > of it could be a port I think :) > > Yes, that's acceptable. But mount_nwfs require libncp.so and this > means that ncp library sources will be also required. So KLD, mount_nwfs > and libncp should go into source tree and other utilities can be a port. > > Other thoughts ? I'm really not sure I see the value in splitting it up like that.. Are things like ncplogin required to support mount_nwfs? Personally, I think it might be better to take the whole lot and later on (nearer 4.0 time) decide if it's worth splitting the ncp* off to a port if it's worth doing. Otherwise version skew is going to be a hassle while it's under development. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message