Hello, Joan Lledó, le sam. 23 mai 2026 12:14:45 +0200, a ecrit: > El 19/5/26 a les 23:26, Roy Marples ha escrit: > > > My main concern is for patch #3. Why does Hurd provide a #define for BSD - > > it's clearly not a BSD and I see this as a bug that should be resolved > > outside of dhcpcd. > > Totally agree :). I also don't know why the Hurd defines `BSD` and then > doesn't implement BSD interface.
It does. It doesn't implement all of them, sure, it's almost by definition since as soon as BSD introduces a new one, it's not implemented. But then that's the same for any past BSD version. And for all discrepancies between OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD. But really, the Hurd exposes a very BSD-ish interface. > In the case of BPF, you can get some > further info here: > > https://darnassus.sceen.net/~hurd-web/open_issues/bpf/ > > It was considered to implement BSD interface via BPF translator and finally > discarded. IMO implement BSD interface would be optimal in order to get max > compatibility with existing packages, Yes, but at the expense of making it *much* less flexible. Having a bpf translator on /dev/bpf means that is has to know about *all* network devices in some way. That cannot include tunnel devices that can be created on the file in any place of the filesystem space. Since there is a portability library which can be taught to open the device node itself and set up some bpf filtering directly there, it can be leveraged to keep the maximum flexibility. With regards, Samuel
