2013/7/29 Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org>: > Some code appears to have > possibly hardcoded a value of 100. And even NetBSD seems to have > chosen that value. So I think we should simply change GNU/kFreeBSD to > use 100 in the kernel. > > I don't foresee any breakage from such a change. This is only relevant > to IPSEC-enabled kernels anyway, which Debian doesn't currently build. > > Alternatively we could even accept *both* values to mean UDP_ENCAP.
For proposals to change kernel-user ABI, would it be possible to discuss them in freebsd-arch instead? It seems to me that you have a strong case in favour of accepting both values. Upstream is receptive to changes that improve their compatibility. Running Debian in a chroot on FreeBSD is a valid use case that they would be happy to discuss improvements about as long as they're not detrimental to FreeBSD userland. I still think the right solution would be to move UDP_ENCAP into a kernel-specific header, though. But I don't see why we can't have both (FreeBSD can benefit from supporting Wheezy chroots regardless of what Glibc does in the future). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
