On 12 May 2016 at 14:32, Adam Števko <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I suppose the smaller the divergence, the better it would be. But > that’s the theory.
In some senses that's true. As I was working on it, though, it became obvious that there are a number of things that will just be different: e.g., we have rather different data structures (list_t, avl_t), our packet filter hooks are a bit different, we're already an SMP capable kernel, we have zones (and each zone needs its own idea of what is, today, a single-instance firewall), we generally want to have prefixed structures and typedef types. In the end, it might be possible to do a port that did _not_ use as many of our native facilities, but then it would be less easy to debug and less of a first class citizen. Part of this work is not just doing a port, but deciding on the legacy you'll be creating: who will look after it over time, and how. Also, at the time I had not had opportunity to evaluate "npf" from NetBSD. Perhaps it'd be a better fit? I'm not sure. >> Who would be funded via the Kickstarter to actually do the work? > The person is not yet known. We just want to know how many potential backers > could we get and if it’s even possible to fund the port. I think if you're looking to fund work, you should probably first figure out who you would be funding. -- Joshua M. Clulow UNIX Admin/Developer http://blog.sysmgr.org ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
