Daria Mehra wrote: > Thank you for the input, see responses inline. > > Darren Reed wrote: >> Presumably this project will be integrating and using DLPI? >> >> Given that this package is no longer maintained, will it be updated >> to use libdlpi instead of directly using DLPI? > > I looked into updating libnet to use libdlpi. This can be done, but > will require source code modifications (which we cannot submit back to > the open source project because it's no longer maintained). The effort > involved will be substantial, at least for me, since I am not > experienced with C network programming. If the ARC insists that this > work should be done pre-integration, I will proceed to do it, but it > will push out the target build.
The issue sounds non-architectural to me, but an implementation detail. (We're still supporting DLPI, after all.) However, the idea of converting to libdlpi is still a good one. (And by the way, such a project might be a great way to learn more about network programming with C! Frankly, libdlpi makes things much much simpler, than just using the old DLPI directly.) A question about a project integrating without an upstream maintainer that I'd have to ask is, how are we maintaining them? You can't claim there is upstream support if there really isn't any, so someone from Sun our our community would need to sign up to "own" the software. (Again, not architectural, but a real question for the C-Team.) But I think this particular concern may be irrelevant for this project, since I did find at http://www.packetfactory.net/libnet/ that there was a web page, updated last year, indicating that there is still a maintainer for the upstream. Do you know differently? -- Garrett
