Re: routing socket rou(n)ding?

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> This is ugly, on a par with the SCM_RIGHTS flag day.  A code
>> author's choices are to forego backward compatability, forego
>> forward compatability, or write two versions, one for old kernels
>> and one for new.  ABI compatability is all very well, but there are
>> at least a few of us out here who care about API compatability too.

> And why do you think old binaries don't continue to work?

My remarks have nothing to do with old binaries; I was talking about
old source code.  Old source ("dating from the days before the macros
made it into the include files", as I put it), compiled on a new
system, will explode (if it uses IPv6 or possibly others, since IPv4
sockaddrs have zero bytes of round-up space under either scheme).
Hence my remarks about API compatability.

Perhaps fortunately, in this case it's easier to patch the source so it
works on both systems than it was in the SCM_RIGHTS case.

> If you bothered to look at the current sources, you'd see [...]

If you bothered to read what I wrote, instead of...I don't know what,
reacting to what you think I might be saying?...

> Only newly compiled sources will use the new code.

And that only if they are written to the "use RT_ROUNDUP" paradigm
(whence the "before the macros...").

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B