From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20825 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 20809 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:32:31 +0100 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l32KWTx0025134 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:32:29 -0400 Received: from gateway.sf.frob.com (vpn-14-115.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.115]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l32KK79a020859; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:20:07 -0400 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEA9357B; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by magilla.sf.frob.com (Postfix, from userid 5281) id C4965180064; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:20:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: Ulrich Drepper , GNU libc hackers Subject: Re: bits/in.h patch In-Reply-To: Andreas Jaeger's message of Saturday, 24 March 2007 17:28:39 +0100 X-Antipastobozoticataclysm: Bariumenemanilow Message-Id: <20070402202006.C4965180064@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:32:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 > Roland McGrath writes: > > > The Hurd does not have working ipv6 support yet, and when it does it will > > be fine to have it use the Linux numbers for socket options in the user API > > (it will probably be using the Linux ipv6 code anyway). > > So, should my patch go in? Or how should we solve this? I think it's fine.