In message <87wtfocovr.fsf@quark.mobile.fnop.net>, Rui Paulo writes:


>On HEAD, we have 3 structs. The inpcbhdr, inpcb and in6pcb.
>
>What I am doing is merging then in one, 'inpcb', struct.

Yes, I understood that much quite plainly from Christos' message.
What I still don't understand is *why* we'd want  to do that.

Or more precisely, I don't know what has changed from the last time we
tried to do clean-up in this area, beacuse back then the consensus was
to create the inpcbhdr, and to push that change further through the code.
(I vaguley recall that merging the pcbs was ruled out, but I'm not 100% sure).

Reading between the lines of what Christos wrote, I'm guessing that:

0. We have a strong desire to ship prebuilt, NetBSD-native
   binary JVM executables forall our ports;

1.  We need to support IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to pass the Java
   conformance suite which we have to pass to acheive #1;

2. Core has therefore considerably softened the earlier stance,
   which was along the lines of "IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses
   considered harmfull."  [NB, that's the acutal title
   of a repeatedly-issued internet draft written by a former Core member]

3. Somehow, the inpbhdr/inpcb/in6pcb method doesn't cut it for the
   IPv4-mapped PF_INET6 addreses which [as I try to read between the lines]
   we need to ship prebuilt Java binaries.


Am I close?