Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:23:09 -0300 From: Federico Heinz Message-ID: <20110311122309.1292c1dd@...1451...> In-Reply-To: <20110309085656.18e0e796@...1451...> References: <20110308185252.301d0a1d@...1451...> <20110309084745.GN9835@...1296...> <20110309085656.18e0e796@...1451...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/m.l_ZvcJpwZ0CP/9sPl+xZS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH] Bind only to specified interface List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net --Sig_/m.l_ZvcJpwZ0CP/9sPl+xZS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm sorry, folks, I'd like to ask for some clarification. My patch was NAK'd on implementation issues. I offered alternatives to them. I got no answer to them. Should I bother implementing one of the alternatives, or will the patch be disregarded nonetheless? If the patch does stand a chance to be accepted with a better implemantation, should I go with getiffadrs() or the current approach to get the interface's IP address? Fede --Sig_/m.l_ZvcJpwZ0CP/9sPl+xZS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNej5dbPULDL0CxuARAtzsAJ0Ur7n+lxxF8V2pb2nz9x7qP5xvKgCgvrmI 5TA/qdQGK6yExfum3lumfBg= =ikoG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/m.l_ZvcJpwZ0CP/9sPl+xZS--