Re: [lwip-users] LCP Termination Request steps

[Ivan Delamer]

Just wanted to say, that this is a great project to take on, thanks
Sylvain. I can volunteer to test your port as I have a test PPP client
running 24/7 here in the office.

I also wanted to update the PPP code using more pbufs vs. static buffers,
without affecting the base samba code too much. Maybe it will make sense
once the 2.4.x is stable.

Cheers
Ivan

PS: Maybe we should continue this conversation on lwip-devel, I almost
missed this entirely!


> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 21:22:05 +0200
> From: Sylvain Rochet <address@hidden>
> To: Mailing list for lwIP users <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [lwip-users] LCP Termination Request steps
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:08:04PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>
>> That would be great! If 2.4.x really fixes bugs where we found them,
>> that overrides the argument of staying with the 2.3.x code base
>> because of smaller code size
>
> PPPd 2.4.x is at least used in all major Linux distributions, and
> benefits from patchs from them. For example, there are 37 patchs for
> PPPd into Debian, and some of them fixes bugs. I guess this is because
> PPPd upstream does not answer. The PPPd bugs tracker do not work anymore
> too and one bug I sent there went into the middle of nowhere.
>
>
>> (since 2.4.x brings in some features that are seldom used and are not
>> conditionally compiled).
>
> We can add the necessary compile-time conditions, this is pretty easy to
> do, I am planning to do so with the previous compile-time options used.
>
>
> Sylvain
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 198 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> URL:
> <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lwip-users/attachments/20120514/1d3caeec/attachment.pgp>
>