Re: GSoC 2013

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st> wrote:
> <...>
> Apparently this is a never-ending chase so basing it on OpenBSD PF seems
> logical until you realize how much work it really is. NPF probably
> suffers from the same thing to a lesser extent, except that's it's
> NetBSD-specific.  We have a general interest in what's going on with it,
> but to my knowledge no DragonFly developer has been involved or even
> invited. <...>

Well, do you need an invitation?  I try to answer most of the emails (as
my free time permits) about NPF.  If DragonFly developers have an interest,
I am glad to answer questions or suggest on potential difficulties you might
experience while porting NPF.  After all, this would result in extra testing
and perhaps contributions to NPF, while DragonFly community would hopefully
get a decent piece of software.

At this moment, I do not think there are any architectural NetBSD-specific
parts.  Obviously, NetBSD has different interfaces and you might find that
adopting some (e.g. ptree(9) interface) might be less problematic than
converting.  On the other hand, I would consider abstraction or interface
adjustments to make supporting of a different system easier.

> <...> And there's the point that it's not even production ready.

Can you ground this point?  While there are still important milestones to
complete, I think NPF version which will ship with NetBSD 6.1 has a pretty
stable feature set.

-- 
Mindaugas