Re: Making NM portable

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

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