Andreas Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On mån, 2008-06-09 at 13:39 +0200, Warly wrote:
>> You will see that the code is partly a duplication from iproute code,
>> and this is the reason why the header are needed. But likely there must
>> be a cleaner way to do that.
>
> By including , t
On mån, 2008-06-09 at 19:53 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
[...]
> By including , the public header for the static library -
> which you previously got via the other headers, and reorganizing the
> code the parts your test-code requires boiled down to this:
[...]
...and by eliminating dead code
On mån, 2008-06-09 at 13:39 +0200, Warly wrote:
> I tried to narrow down the code to the function which is the most linked
> to iproute
[...]
Thanks! Really helps in the investigation on what the right solution is.
> You will see that the code is partly a duplication from iproute code,
> and this
Andreas Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On ons, 2008-06-04 at 10:26 +0200, Warly wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is not a big deal I can recreate a local version of iproute-dev
>> with these headers, just to let you know that maybe other people may
>> have the problem too.
>
> If they are su
On ons, 2008-06-04 at 10:26 +0200, Warly wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just FYI I was using some of the headers which were removed, namely
>
> ip_common.h ll_map.h rtm_map.h rt_names.h utils.h
Thanks for letting us know!
>
> This is not a big deal I can recreate a local version of iproute-dev
> with
Hello,
Just FYI I was using some of the headers which were removed, namely
ip_common.h ll_map.h rtm_map.h rt_names.h utils.h
This is not a big deal I can recreate a local version of iproute-dev
with these headers, just to let you know that maybe other people may
have the problem too.
To be
6 matches
Mail list logo
