>> I'd actually rather just link to libnl on Linux and libroute on *BSD I >> think, abstracting the two inside NM. Because unless you want to >> basically copy the functionality of libnl into libroute (which might >> take a while) it's probably easier to just abstract it in NM.
> Going to agree with Dan here. Not really a need to make libroute do what > libnl does... we already have libnl. We can create the necessary > abstractions inside NetworkManager so we can work with either libnl or > libroute. Looking at it from the Inetutils aspect, there is a plan to implement a portable 'route' using 'libroute', so if 'libroute' has support for various kernels (including Linux), it makes it easy to write 'route' as a client program using 'libroute'. Since I am trying to keep the same interface for adding, deleting, showing, etc. across different backends it would become really easy to write portable client applications. What do you think? Cheers, Debarshi _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
