On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:04:33PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: >> On Saturday 30 December 2006 22:46, Paolo Pisati wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 01:43:21PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote: >>>> Note that this was for a kernel that uses ipfw, but not natd (ref. >>>> src/sys/conf/NOTES). >>> >>> my mistake, i'll write an entry for UPDATING. >> >> Shouldn't it still be possible to build a kernel with IPFW but without >> LIBALIAS? i.e. instead of a UPDATING entry you should just wrap the >> libalias entry points in IPFW - or am I misunderstanding what you are >> saying? > > with my last commit, LIBALIAS became mandatory for IPFW, and this adds 40kb > (-O nocona) to my kernel size. > > If it's really an issue, i can change it. Yes -- I'd prefer it if we could make LIBALIAS optional for IPFW, similar to dummynet, ipdivert, etc. Is this something done without too much trouble? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of CambridgeReceived on Sun Dec 31 2006 - 14:28:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC