On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:52:26PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:48:30PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > > You seem to make using libnet optional, is there a reason > > > > > not to just remove it? portability? > > > > > > > > Agreed, lets just drop it. > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > BTW, is it correct that most of it could be done by "ip", similar as > > > IPaddr2 does it? The only think missing would be a send_arp v6. > > > Anyone want to write an IPv6addr2? ;-) > > > > I believe that the main objection to using "ip" is that it doesn't exist > > outside of Linux. > > > > If you look at the history of IPaddr vs IPaddr2. > > Yes, I know.
Sorry if I sounded condescending, I know you know that code pretty well :-) > > If we contrast this to IPv6addr, its cross platform, > > Oh, I did not realize that. > > > So no, I don't think there is a strong reason for an "ip" based > > IPv6addr2. And I really wish the IPaddr/IPaddr2 situation didn't exist. > > me too ;-) :-) _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
