Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:56 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Cc: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NetWare client in -current Message-ID: <19990910111556.BC5731CA8@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:51:36 %2B0700." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909101646100.9907-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990910111556.BC5731CA8>