> > BTW, a BSD-based pfinet is highly desired, mainly because of
> > um-pppd. Recent changes in the FreeBSD Net/3 (especially the
> > netgraph(4) infrastructure [e.g. ng_pppoe], KAME, ...) influenced
> > 'ppp' so much, that it would be very hard to synchronize FreeBSD ppp
> > with the Hurd version in the forseeable future.
>
> Wrong. The only reliance that um-pppd has on pfinet is a tunnel
> device; everything else is pretty much standard.
>
Really? Here's an example where this is not true (anymore?). In
FreeBSD 4.5RC (-STABLE), last cvsupped 01/20/2001:
farid@bsdevil:/usr/src/usr.sbin/ppp> uname -a
FreeBSD bsdevil.rent-a-wizard.net 4.5-RC FreeBSD 4.5-RC #0: Mon Jan 21 02:26:11 CET
2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYTOWER i386
farid@bsdevil:/usr/src/usr.sbin/ppp> grep ng_pppoe *
ether.c:#include <netgraph/ng_pppoe.h>
ether.c: if (modfind("ng_pppoe") == -1 && ID0kldload("ng_pppoe") == -1) {
ether.c: log_Printf(LogWARN, "kldload: ng_pppoe: %s\n", strerror(errno));
ppp.8:.Xr ng_pppoe 4
ppp.8:.Xr ng_pppoe 4 ,
Here, ether.c uses the ng_pppoe KLD to provide PPPoE support.
Of course, the code for this is only included when:
#if defined(__FreeBSD__) && !defined(NOKLDLOAD)
but this is not always the case. I see a _LOT_ of references to
netgraph(3) Ng*() functions throughout the code.
So it may still be necessary to port Net/3 and netgraph(4) to the
Hurd anyway, if we want to be able to synchronize to the most
recent ppp version, right? Of course, we could rely on the current
um-pppd, but, we'll miss pppoe and other goodies them!
Regards,
-Farid.
--
Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
One OS To Rule Them All And In The Darkness Bind Them... --Bill Gates.
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
