From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 10 6:10:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lion.butya.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [194.87.112.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93F414E26 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 06:10:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bp@butya.kz) Received: from bp (helo=localhost) by lion.butya.kz with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11PQOA-0003QY-00; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:06:50 +0700 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:06:50 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov To: Peter Wemm Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NetWare client in -current In-Reply-To: <19990910111556.BC5731CA8@overcee.netplex.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > > 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. Thats why I suggested an original scheme... -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message