Ken Nakata writes:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:46:52 -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > More importantly, I think LBL's excuse is rather lame,
> 
> Then why did NetBSD reject the patch because LBL rejected it with the
> "lame" "execuse"? (provided the fact that NetBSD rejected it because
> of LBL's rejection of the patch is true; if not, I'd like to hear the
> real reason)

Because we didn't want to maintain our own version of tcpdump, as I
said.

Now that it appears that tcpdump isn't a fast moving target, we may be 
willing to do so.

Perry