In message <20021107233053.A28047@noc.untraceable.net>, you write: 

-> >	SIOCGIFCONF is way too hard to get right, that's the very reason why
-> >	we now have getifaddrs(3).  i'm all for the change.
-> 
-> i beg to differ.  i did "it", without knowing it was supposed to be
-> difficult, i have no doubt that you could "it", others have done "it"
-> in the past, and i'm sure others will do "it" in the future.
-> 
-> certainly, using getifaddrs(3) is "easier", but SIOCGIFCONF *not*
-> "hard".
-> 
-> that said, i'm not at all opposed to the change, but what i am opposed
-> to is the FUD about SIOCGIFCONF.

I don't think it's *total* FUD, tough I agree with you that "it" is doable
and will continue to be done.  However, "it" also caused a bunch of code 
to break on architectured where strict alignment matters because the data
is returned packed and sometimes simply walking a ifreq pointer through
the buffer is not TRT, IIRC.

--rafal

----
Rafal Boni                                                     rafal@attbi.com
  We are all worms.  But I do believe I am a glowworm.  -- Winston Churchill