MK_NETGRAPH and MK_ATM/MK_BLUETOOTH

[Skip Ford]

Antoine Brodin wrote:
> I am looking at PR 137487, world broken WITHOUT_NETGRAPH.
> Is it reasonable to have MK_NETGRAPH=no enforce MK_ATM=no and MK_BLUETOOTH=no?
> The bluetooth stack is implemented using the netgraph framework.  Some
> bluetooth userland tools include netgraph headers or use netgraph
> sockets.
> There are 2 ATM stacks, netnatm and netgraph/atm.
> netgraph/atm obviously uses netgraph.
> For netnatm, this is not clear if there is a dependency: atmconfig(8)
> includes netgraph headers and some files in sys/contrib/ngatm/netnatm
> also include netgraph headers.

For ATM, yes, it is reasonable to force MK_ATM to no if WITHOUT_NETGRAPH
if defined, as natm as implemented requires netgraph.

In theory, the native ATM stack should work w/out netgraph but not vice
versa.  Unfortunately, all ATM-related stacks and programs, including
the old HARP stack that's now gone, were always hidden behind the same
MK_ATM variable and nobody ever felt the need to split them, presumably
because they always want ngatm and natm together.  So, there really s/b a
MK_NGATM which requires MK_ATM and a MK_ATM that doesn't need netgraph.
If someone actually wants natm without ngatm someday, it can be fixed.
I vote do it.

-- 
Skip