On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
> bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
Three of my machines have the F00F bug; my firewall, my print s
"=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?=" wrote:
> Guys;
>
> I have to agree with Terry that the fixes for netns
> should be committed, and furthermore they should be
> MFC (using his first patch perhaps). It's a nightmare
> to try to rescue anything from the Atti
Guys;
I have to agree with Terry that the fixes for netns
should be committed, and furthermore they should be
MFC (using his first patch perhaps). It's a nightmare
to try to rescue anything from the Attic, at least it
would be nice to have it in better shape before
killing it.
The flame fe
> had ample time to fix and *maintain* this code.
>
> Points moot, anyway. netns has been moved to
> the attic.
Well, that'll certainly show Terry!
Any chance at all of committing my patch to the code in the
attic, so that it will at least compile and run as of current
of t
his code.
Points moot, anyway. netns has been moved to
the attic.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
David O'Brien wrote:
> > Here is a single patch vs. 5.x.
> >
> > I believe this makes it actually work.
>^
>huh? This is untested?
Will you accept interoperability between two FreeBSD boxes? A
FreeBSD box and a NetBSD box?
> > Please apply this to the code, even if you are inte
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:03:49AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
> > > and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
>
Hiten Pandya wrote:
> Sorry to but in, but I don't see why this so called bikesheed keeps
> getting bigger and bigger. The outcome is simple. If your patches
> function properly, then there is no need to remove netns provided you
> don't mind maintaining it. If it doe
Mark Murray wrote:
> > How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out,
> > and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead?
>
> Terry, you sound rather foolish when you argue like this. This
> is semantic tomfoolery and off topic. End of thread.
This is not a argument over mere imp
M. Warner Losh wrote:
ISA support is not obsolete. All new PCs still have ISA busses. They
might not have ISA Expansion Bus Slots, but they all[*] still connect
their serial ports, parallel ports, and mouse/keyboard ports via ISA.
Not to mention i8254 which gets to be major pain if ACPI would
"> if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> > more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
> > bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
"
That's just being silly. ISA support is still very much a requirement.
Laptops usually have ISA s
Terry Lambert (Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:15:11AM -0800) wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > The details might be different but not
> > enough to confuse a competent programmer.
>
> Same argument, in favor of the netns code.
>
> It's a moot point anyway, I just fixed netn
Terry Lambert writes:
> Let' start wth the libalias/natd incremental checksum update code;
> the code is based on RFC1141, instead of RFC1624. As a result,
> it get updated incorrectly occasionally, because it's using two's
> complement instead of one's complement math. Per RFC1642:
>
>RFC 1
Terry Lambert writes:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
> > compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
> > Attic without the "fix".
>
> Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again.
>
> Whatever happene
De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
> if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> more or less
Cool. Then I have a long list of things that can be fixed
or removed.
This whole thing about netns started 3 days ago.
How many days after code is questioned does someone have to fix
it before it is it OK to dike it out?
> > Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remov
Tony Finch wrote:
> The details might be different but not
> enough to confuse a competent programmer.
Same argument, in favor of the netns code.
It's a moot point anyway, I just fixed netns.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-curr
Mark Murray wrote:
> Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
> compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
> Attic without the "fix".
Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again.
Whatever happened to "you broke it, you fix it"?
Hop
Petri Helenius wrote:
> > seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code
> > being there non-trivially complicates maintenance and/or
> > reliability of other code, and can i compile or module it out if
> > the bits it occupies really bothers me?
> >
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
> > and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
> > /sys/netns/.
>
> You seem to have posted the wrong patch.
>
> This
Terry Lambert writes:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
>
> Is "tested" a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
> stay in the tree?
Both.
> Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remove all
> code that does not
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Given that the current TCP/IP stack no longer matches the Stevens
>books, and given that Stevens is too dead to update the books to
>the new FreeBSD stack, even if he wanted to, it's useful to have
>a relatively simple set of code that can be understood w
Mark Murray wrote:
> Terry Lambert writes:
> > Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
> >
> > [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
> >
> > Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a
Juli Mallett writes:
> > > This crap is *s* trivial to fix, it's easier to fix than
> > > to watch you guys bitch about it not being fixable.
> >
> > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
>
> compile-only would be a good state to leave the code in the attic.
O
not having seen apollo networking for over a
> decade. but i probably have not been looking very widely.
I´ve made a sighting in 1996 if I remember correctly. For their sake, I hope
that´s gone now.
>
> seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code
> being ther
* De: Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> Terry Lambert writes:
> > Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > Is there a compelling reason for removing th
Terry Lambert writes:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > > the Attic?
> >
> > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
>
> [ ... lots of tri
F00F
> > > bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
> >
> > Your argument here is non sequitur because we still have large bases of
> > users and developers that have and use this hardware. I retired a box with
> > an original P90 f00f bug cpu n
Doug Barton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > If you want to make it about "failure to attract a maintainer", then
> > do that.
>
> Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary
> "failure to attract a userbase."
I would claim that non-working code
ve not been looking very widely.
seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code
being there non-trivially complicates maintenance and/or
reliability of other code, and can i compile or module it out if
the bits it occupies really bothers me?
randy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> If you want to make it about "failure to attract a maintainer", then
> do that.
Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary
"failure to attract a userbase."
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
To Unsubsc
st as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
> > bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
>
> Your argument here is non sequitur because we still have large bases of
> users and developers that have and use this hardware. I retired a box with
> an origi
Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> > On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
> > if it can be made to work. I wo
of
users and developers that have and use this hardware. I retired a box with
an original P90 f00f bug cpu not that long ago, for example. netns has
neither freebsd users or developers, and hasn't for years.
> In any case, Peter pointed out that my patch was against -stable,
> not -current
Hi
At 08:53 5/3/03, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
for certain.
The same is true for netipx (wc -l *.[ch] is almost identical).
--
Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 97
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
> if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> more or l
Bob Bishop wrote:
> Here's a hint:
>
> "The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered
> after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not
> appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set."
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/product
Hi,
Here's a hint:
"The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered
after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not
appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set."
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/pr
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
netns could be safely moved to Attic. I'm receive enough IPX
related quest
two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
> and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
> /sys/netns/.
You seem to have posted the wrong patch.
This is against 4.x, not -current, and this is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - [EMAIL
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > > the Attic?
> >
> > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
>
> [ ... lots of triv
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
Yep, but keep in mind that netipx is different to netns. netipx actually
works and is actually useful.
> On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
> > What is IPX currently being used
, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic?
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMA
and post a patch. Will that make you
> guys happy?
>
> This crap is *s* trivial to fix, it's easier to fix than
> to watch you guys bitch about it not being fixable.
Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
and /sys/conf/options, the second fixe
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 18:26, Tim Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > I thought nwfs used it?
> >
> > nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:35:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Things being removed constantly.
>
> If you will remember, there has been a rocky history with the
> removal of functionality in FreeBSD. If you don't remember,
> I will be happy to remind you of specific incidents that ended
> up
* De: Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
> > guys happy?
>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
> guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts down on the metadiscussions and
increases the quality of the codebase.
mcl
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > > the Attic
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > the Attic?
>
> Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
t; I thought nwfs used it?
>
> nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
>
>
> Tim
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL P
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Julian Elischer (Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800) wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could
I thought nwfs used it?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
>
>
> Tim
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mai
Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason for doing this, other than "I
> > want to make some API/locking change, but I don't want to
> > have to keep this code working at the same time"? Maximizing
>
> Is there a compelli
NetBSD.
If netns has so many users and our implementation has been broken for so
long, why is it there hasn't been hordes of complaints? It appears as if
users of netns are a rarity...
> BSD4.4 was designed in order to support many stacks, FreeBSD 6, 7 ou 9 will
> support only IP
otocol stack which has enough interested
> users and committers to keep it alive.
>
> netiso and netccitt both fell for both of those criteria: neither users
> nor committers.
>
> netns fails both criteria too.
Yep. It was removed in 1996 as well, because it didn't work. O
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
>> the Attic?
>
>Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
>to find out that it doesn't even compile.
Could we possibly move Terry
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
In file included from ../../../netns/idp_usrreq.c:51:
../../../netns/
fell for both of those criteria: neither users
nor committers.
netns fails both criteria too.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately b
, FreeBSD 6, 7 ou 9 will
support only IPv4 and IPv6, won't they ?
I do not think that it needs to be removed. One should try to keep this
feature.
Regards,
Vincent
Le Mardi 4 Mars 2003 14:47, Tim Robbins a écrit :
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Tim Robbins wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic?
>
> Might as wel
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Barcroft wrote:
> > Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Tim Robbins wrote:
> > > > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > > > it serve a
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tim Robbins wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > > A
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Robbins wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic?
>
> Might as well move /sys/i386
Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the attic while
you are at it. It can serve it's purp
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
IPX comed directly from
> > > > XNS.
> > >
> > > So you are agreeing with me that to use netns to do ipx when we
> > > have netipx does not make sense? :-)
> > >
> > > > FWIW.
> > >
> > > I know, a lot of my time went into
> > > > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx.
> > >
> > > IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The
> > > SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from
> > > XNS.
> >
> >
John Hay wrote:
> > > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx.
> >
> > IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The
> > SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from
> > XNS.
>
> So you are agree
> John Hay wrote:
> > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx.
>
> IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The
> SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from
> XNS.
So you are agreeing with me that to use ne
John Hay wrote:
> Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx.
IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The
SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from
XNS.
FWIW.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fre
ld wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently
> > uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says
> > it's provided for "amusement" value, and are only shipped due to
> > interest.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju
> lian Elischer writes:
> >
> >I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware
> >connectivity.
> >I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move
> >up to 5.x.
>
> Well, th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju
lian Elischer writes:
>
>I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware
>connectivity.
>I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move
>up to 5.x.
Well, they'd better get somebody to fix it then because if it doesn't
at le
I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware
connectivity.
I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move
up to 5.x.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Erik Greenwald wrote:
>
> Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently
> uncom
Keith Sklower did that work. PORTS?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
In message <20020922163034.GA29873@freya>, Erik Greenwald writes:
>
>Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently
>uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says
>it's provided for "amusement" value, and are onl
Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently
uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says
it's provided for "amusement" value, and are only shipped due to
interest. I wouldn't mind seeing it go away in -current and if someo
79 matches
Mail list logo
