Hi,
* Markus Teich markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de [2015-01-22 14:30]:
younix wrote:
I don't get the point with an additional git branch!? What would be the
advantage of it, instead of a diff on the website? How would it look like
if
you made the next release of ii?
After a new official
younix wrote:
I don't get the point with an additional git branch!? What would be the
advantage of it, instead of a diff on the website? How would it look like if
you made the next release of ii?
After a new official release or just a simple new bugfix commit, I feel a `git
merge master`
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 01:22:38PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
* younix j.klem...@wemelug.de [2015-01-15 22:41]:
this diff changes the network connection of ii to the UCSPI[1] protocol.
This makes ii much more flexible. With the UCSPI protocol you could use
features like IPv6[2],
Hi,
* younix j.klem...@wemelug.de [2015-01-15 22:41]:
this diff changes the network connection of ii to the UCSPI[1] protocol.
This makes ii much more flexible. With the UCSPI protocol you could use
features like IPv6[2], SOCKSv5[3] or even TLS[3]. This diff extracts
the socket handling
Hi,
this diff changes the network connection of ii to the UCSPI[1] protocol.
This makes ii much more flexible. With the UCSPI protocol you could use
features like IPv6[2], SOCKSv5[3] or even TLS[3]. This diff extracts
the socket handling infrastructure to an external program like
tcpclient. So
younix wrote:
What is your opinion about this diff? At least it would be great to put this
patch at the ii suckless webpage. So I could made an OpenBSD port (flavor) of
it.
As I've already told you on 31c3 I think the separation in socket/tls/protocol
layers is very good and can be reused
