On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:22 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote: > >> 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.
Yeah, but NM uses libnl for all address operations too. So unless libroute adds addressing abstractions, NM will still use libnl code internally. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
