Re: [leaf-devel] Bering uClibc with Kernel 2.6
Hi Erich, > And for all your effort which point into the future here it is _WELL DONE_ ;-) > One of my concerns in the 2.6 branch will be IPSEC, as now we need to > use the native stack. It appears that with using the native stack IPSEC > will be an application like any other, so we may have now the benefit of > using Strongswan's IKEv2 implementation :-) I'll take your word for it - I've only briefly played with IPSEC a long time ago, and I've been very happy that I could do everything I need with OpenVPN. > Anyway, I need to probably get two buidltool branches, how are you > people doing this? If you mean 2 build environments (one for Bering uClibc, one for whatever it's name will be), yes, I have two separate setups (happens automatically, since the two are stored separately in CVS). Not terribly nice if one is switching between the two (since one always has to remember to have /lib/ld-uClibc.so.0 point to the right buildenv, but other than that (and the extra space this needs), it's no big deal to me. Martin - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] Bering uClibc with Kernel 2.6
Hi Martin Martin Hejl wrote, at 07.03.2008 21:56: > Hi all, > > this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails) > discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no > response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interested in > continued work on that image (and has just not had an issue with it what > I've posted last Saturday), or did I scare off people with my too > verbose email, or is there just no interest, as long as somebody > provides the drivers for the hardware people need? Actually playing with e1000 for 2.4 reset me a little lately. Definitely I am convinced that if LEAF wants to go on strongly we need to be on par with other project which do similar work, e.g. 2.6 is a must. And for all your effort which point into the future here it is _WELL DONE_ One of my concerns in the 2.6 branch will be IPSEC, as now we need to use the native stack. It appears that with using the native stack IPSEC will be an application like any other, so we may have now the benefit of using Strongswan's IKEv2 implementation :-) Anyway, I need to probably get two buidltool branches, how are you people doing this? Thanks Erich - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
