Greg Troxel <[email protected]> skribis: > I think Linux-only interfaces is a real concern, as it will lead to > guile programs that work only on Linux. > > An alternative is to look at something like quagga, which has a glue > layer for various OS support for netlink/rtsock/?. That's more work, > but would let people implment a non-OS-specific interface on multiple > systems and allow portable scheme code.
I just checked and Quagga’s documentation doesn’t say anything about its library. Is it an internal library or something really exposed to users? (BTW, I should note that this patch of David’s is part of his work to support Linux containers, with a longer-term goal to support GNU/Hurd, but that’ll be different interfaces anyway.) > Until then, why can't the netlink code not be part of guile, and just > another package to build and install and then access via use-modules, > sort of how guile-pg is separate? Other than wanting to avoid an extra > package, what's the downside? As I wrote, the low-level socket interface cannot be outside of libguile because at least ‘make-socket-address’ and friends need to cooperate. However, libnl bindings could indeed be outside of Guile. Thanks, Ludo’.
