Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-03-05 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 05/03/13(Tue) 09:03, David Hill wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote: > > > > > >On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600 > >> > From: "Todd T. Fries" > >> > > >> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-03-05 Thread David Hill
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600 >> > From: "Todd T. Fries" >> > >> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? >> > >> > I played

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread Bob Beck
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600 > > From: "Todd T. Fries" > > > > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? > > > > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use >

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread todd
Penned by Mark Kettenis on 20130211 10:00.08, we have: | > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600 | > From: "Todd T. Fries" | > | > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? | > | > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use | > for it i

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600 > From: "Todd T. Fries" > > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? > > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use > for it in the last number of years. > > I vote it gets tedu'ed. I fear it's

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013/02/11 00:05, Todd T. Fries wrote: > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? ftp translation; but I doubt anyone uses that. > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use > for it in the last number of years. > > I vote it gets t

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 11 February 2013 07:05, Todd T. Fries wrote: > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? > > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use > for it in the last number of years. > > I vote it gets tedu'ed. > I vote for it too, I remember

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-11 Thread Todd T. Fries
In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore? I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use for it in the last number of years. I vote it gets tedu'ed. Penned by David Hill on 20130209 12:53.51, we have: | Anyone want to OK and commit? | | O

Re: faithd fcntl diff

2013-02-09 Thread David Hill
Anyone want to OK and commit? On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:19:18PM -0500, David Hill wrote: >O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL > >Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c >=== >RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v >retrieving revision 1.12 >dif

faithd fcntl diff

2013-01-20 Thread David Hill
O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v retrieving revision 1.12 diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c --- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 - 1.