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-RIPEReceived on Sun Dec 31 2006 - 06:34:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC