harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [porting] Quick update on FreeBSD porting
Date Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:57:29 GMT

In message <4C101362.1050601@p6m7g8.com>, "Philip M. Gollucci" writes:
> On 06/09/10 19:49, Mark Hindess wrote:
> >
> > I've fixed most of the networking issues up to a point.  However,
> > FreeBSD is really more like Windows in the way it supports IPv4/IPv6
> > addresses/sockets so there isn't much more I can do without
> > re-implementing the unix natives to support the same dual socket
> > mechanisms used in the windows natives.  I don't really have much
> > enthusiasm for the major redesign/refactoring that would be needed
> > to do this work properly.  There are some good descriptions of the
> > problems that the current implementation has at [0] and [1].
> I'm dumb founded, if you going to say FBSD has any strengths, its
> network stack is certainitly one of them.  Though I've not messed with
> ipv6 much.

None of my statements quoted above were actually intended to convey any
judgement about the FBSD TCP/IP implementation.  When I wrote "problems
that the current implementation has" I was referring to Harmony problems
not to FreeBSD problems.

I did mention one specific issue (that you edited out) with the
implementation that I found confusing but that could just be a
misunderstanding on my part.

> > I will probably produce a FreeBSD/x86_64 download for the next
> > milestone release so people can kick it a little and raise bugs for
> > things that they'd like to see fixed for real world applications.
> To add an entry to the FreeBSD ports tree all thats required is a
> .tar.gz or whatever variant of the code.  I believe you previously
> mentioned it built before.

I probably could figure out how to create a syntactically-correct ports
tree entry however I'm not really familiar enough with the best practice
to do a good job of it.  In particular, the "ant fetch-depends" step
would likely be frowned upon and I'm not sure how to get around that
in an acceptable way.


View raw message