Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:04:53 +0300
From:      Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Paolo Pisati <piso@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Can't link kernel after recent libalias commits?
Message-ID:  <20061231070453.GV46380@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061231024203.GA8147@tin.it>
References:  <20061230195219.GD64111@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20061230214321.GG64111@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20061230214609.GA6996@tin.it> <200612302304.39194.max@love2party.net> <20061231024203.GA8147@tin.it>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 03:42:03AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
P> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:04:33PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
P> > On Saturday 30 December 2006 22:46, Paolo Pisati wrote:
P> > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 01:43:21PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
P> > > > Note that this was for a kernel that uses ipfw, but not natd (ref.
P> > > > src/sys/conf/NOTES).
P> > >
P> > > my mistake, i'll write an entry for UPDATING.
P> > 
P> > Shouldn't it still be possible to build a kernel with IPFW but without 
P> > LIBALIAS?  i.e. instead of a UPDATING entry you should just wrap the 
P> > libalias entry points in IPFW - or am I misunderstanding what you are 
P> > saying?
P> 
P> with my last commit, LIBALIAS became mandatory for IPFW, and this adds
P> 40kb (-O nocona) to my kernel size.
P> 
P> If it's really an issue, i can change it. 

As I said it will be very nice if it would be still possible to build
ipfw(4) w/o libalias. I think more people will share my opinion.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061231070453.GV46380>