On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:44, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > On 2022/05/29 19:08, Florian Obser wrote: > > On 2022-05-29 12:27 -04, Andrew Cagney <andrew.cag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Are you porting libreswan?
Slowly. > > > Per: > > > > > > --enable-event-api Enable (experimental) pluggable event base > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Why? This seems like a good reason to not do it. > > > > > libunbound API installed to unbound-event.h > > > > > > > Nevermind that we don't install libunbound at all. > > We do in ports. > > This configure flag literally just installs the header file, that's all. > If there's a good reason for it, we could do that. Performance. It lets libunbound use a common (crypto heavy) thread pool. > For (RT_)ADVANCE, we try to avoid header pollution. Suggest you just > make a local copy of the definition as is done in route.c. That's why I'm suggesting adding RT_ADVANCE(). The name, which I'm lifting from NetBSD, at least includes RT_*(), unlike FreeBSD's SA_SIZE(). I'd prefer to be relying on something that's part of a published interface, rather than magically gleaned from source code.
