In message <4c101362.1050...@p6m7g8.com>, "Philip M. Gollucci" writes: > > On 06/09/10 19:49, Mark Hindess wrote: > > > > I've fixed most of the networking issues up to a point. However, > > FreeBSD is really more like Windows in the way it supports IPv4/IPv6 > > addresses/sockets so there isn't much more I can do without > > re-implementing the unix natives to support the same dual socket > > mechanisms used in the windows natives. I don't really have much > > enthusiasm for the major redesign/refactoring that would be needed > > to do this work properly. There are some good descriptions of the > > problems that the current implementation has at [0] and [1]. > > I'm dumb founded, if you going to say FBSD has any strengths, its > network stack is certainitly one of them. Though I've not messed with > ipv6 much.
None of my statements quoted above were actually intended to convey any judgement about the FBSD TCP/IP implementation. When I wrote "problems that the current implementation has" I was referring to Harmony problems not to FreeBSD problems. I did mention one specific issue (that you edited out) with the implementation that I found confusing but that could just be a misunderstanding on my part. > > I will probably produce a FreeBSD/x86_64 download for the next > > milestone release so people can kick it a little and raise bugs for > > things that they'd like to see fixed for real world applications. > > To add an entry to the FreeBSD ports tree all thats required is a > .tar.gz or whatever variant of the code. I believe you previously > mentioned it built before. I probably could figure out how to create a syntactically-correct ports tree entry however I'm not really familiar enough with the best practice to do a good job of it. In particular, the "ant fetch-depends" step would likely be frowned upon and I'm not sure how to get around that in an acceptable way. Regards, Mark.
