does busybox actually support IPv6?

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 18 May 2006 10:36 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i did notice that KEEP_UNUSED test -- i also noticed that it's
> exclusive to that single source file interface.c.  i have no real
> objection to hanging on to code for future consideration as long as
> it's labelled clearly that way (yes, "KEEP_UNUSED" is kind of a lame
> name.  how about "IN_PROGRESS"?  or "UNDER_CONSTRUCTION"?  :-)

Comments are comments.  #ifdefs are not comments.

Yank it, please...

> in any event, i've always felt that even code that is currently
> de-activated should still be syntactically and semantically correct as
> much as possible.

I feel that code that's deactivated shouldn't be in the tree.  Adding new 
stuff isn't hard, and we haven't got a shortage of references how...

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.