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>