Julian,
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree with itojun. Although I understand FreeBSD guys want
> > to make code from KAME cleaner in terms of FreeBSD's own point of
> > view, it will make future merge from KAME to FreeBSD harder. This is
> > a trade-off issue, but at this moment, I think we'll still need
> > further merge from KAME to FreeBSD, so I'd prefer keeping the code "as
> > is" for a while.
>
> Although I understand KAME guys want
> to make code from KAME cleaner in terms of KAME's own point of
> view, it will make future merge from Almost anywhere else to FreeBSD harder.
Let us express that KAME code is designed for all the *BSDs. We don't
have enough resources to arrange KAME code for each BSD as they want
to be. Althogh I understand your point that some parts of KAME code
is not a FreeBSD's manner, but currentry, this is the best compromise
to support all the BSDs with minimum efforts. Please understand our
approach...
---
Keiichi SHIMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IIJ Research Laboratory / KAME project
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
