Collin Funk <collin.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Simon, > > Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: > >> Thanks - I'm neutral on these patches, as I don't really know what a >> positive or negative test for them would be. However, speaking on >> inet_ntoa and different code paths reminded me: a good todo work item >> would be to merge the ping4 and ping6 tools. I don't think there are >> any reasonable arguments for having different main() etc code paths for >> these two tools, they ought to be close enough to use the same overall >> logic and differ when needed depending on IPv4 vs IPv6. Does anyone see >> any strong argument against that? I think some small (hopefully >> unintentional) variations between these tools have sneaked in because >> they aren't synced, and I think it would be nice to make them more >> consistent. Not sure if you want to work on this, but thought I should >> mention it. > > I don't see an issue with it. I think I have seen some versions of ping > use a single binary for IPv4 and IPv6 and others use separate. I forget > which implementations do which. Perhaps the older ones use separate > binaries? I'll have a look at merging them.
I think it should be straight forward, but last time I looked at it, I
started hesitating when I noticed some deviations between ping and ping6
and became unsure which behaviour should be preferred, or if all
behaviour (even likely unintentional) has to be identical.
> Also, I wonder if we can add some headers to gnulib. Currently Inetutils
> has a "replacement" header for <netinet/ip_icmp.h>. This should be
> available on BSD and GNU libc systems.
>
> Likewise we check for arpa/{ftp.h,telnet.h,tftp.h} and define things if
> they aren't available. Though those files have BSD licenses on them
> which would likely mean messing with gnulib-tool...
Yes, there is still more work to be done here, it seems InetUtils uses a
number of header files most other applications have stopped using...
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
