On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> > >I'll be very happy to work with you on this one.
> >
> > Does it make sense to make src/crypto/sys for kernel code?
> > (for IPsec we need crypto code *in kernel*).
>
> I wonder...
>
> There was a contrib/sys (where softupdates went), and that got moved
> to sys/contrib.
>
> Perhaps something similar could be invented for src/crypto? We'd need
> to make the distibution machinery understand that, but I don't see
> too much a problem there.
>
> I have no strong feelings about src/crypto/sys or src/sys/crypto.
I would prefer src/sys/crypto. I tend to have a lot of kernel-only trees
around for my work and the more self-contained they are the better. Moving
softupdates into sys/crypto was a good thing (IMHO).
--
Doug Rabson Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
