> That would be really nice, if allowed by the ISDN4BSD people.

I'm not sure about this. (For all the people outside: I'm the one who
did the first port of I4B to NetBSD and now maintain the i386 part)

There has been much internal hassle during early I4B developement, which came
out with a strong sentiment of the (at that time) one and only master of the
sources: no KNF.

Actually various parts of the source were reworked to fit our kernel normal
form, submitted to the I4B repository and at next touch changed back to ANSI
style.

I'm not going through this one more time.

But we have another problem dawning on horizon: there will be no more formal
I4B distribution outside of the FreeBSD CVS repository sometime in the
future. (No, no details yet, but I strongly see this coming)

We have IMHO two options then: checkout the latest FreeBSD version, maintain
and apply our private patch tree against it and redistribute that as I4NetBSD.
Or: integrate into our own CVS repository and try to keep more-or-less in 
sync with the FreeBSD stuff.

I don't like the first option.

I'm not sure I like the "try to keep more-or-less in sync" part of the second
option. We are diverging, and this will hit us badly: I4B will probably go
straight the Whistle/netgraph route and I'm not sure NetBSD per se and I4B-in-
NetBSD will follow.

Anyway, since I don't have commit access, I can't integrate it. Ignatious (sp?
sorry, I'll never learn that name!) and/or Leo could. Given access, I would
do it (and maintain it) *BUT* I realy like to see the never ending discussion
of allowing ANSI style prototyped code in KNF come to a good end first!

Rewriting the stuff and integrate something different from the main
distribution is a no-no IMHO. But if you find someone willing to do the
work (and maintin it) the I4B license surely allows you to do that!


Martin