On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 09:47:46PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:37:28 +0100 > Rui Paulo <[email protected]> mentioned: > > > > > On 11 Apr 2009, at 18:36, Rui Paulo wrote: > > > > > Author: rpaulo > > > Date: Sat Apr 11 17:36:11 2009 > > > New Revision: 190944 > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190944 > > > > > > Log: > > > Revert previous commit that commented out some bpf functions. > > > Unconstify arguments of bpf_image(), bpf_filter() and bpf_dump(). > > > This > > > is needed because some ports rely heavely on these arguments (some of > > > them even roll out their own implemenentations of bpf_dump). > > > > We can revisit this issue in the future if ports start complying with > > new libpcap headers. > > > > Have you analyzed how much ports depend on this? We can fix them locally > if the number is not that high. We have already done that with usb and other > changes. > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsBrokenOnCurrent near the bottom.
About 8 ports, so definately fixable. How do other OSes handle this? it would certainly be a good thing to be consistent with them for portability and easier upstream integreation. Cheers, -erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult [email protected] especially about the future [email protected]
pgpC3ovrMudBA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
