From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 18 11:00:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA00619 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00614 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA01116 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd001110; Wed Jun 18 17:52:27 1997 Message-ID: <33A82019.FF6D5DF@whistle.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:51:21 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Adding a new feature to 2.2 series? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Whistle communications is one of the major users and maintainers of the ipfw and diversion code. (we wrote the latter and have helped maintian the former) We also have based our product around the 2.2 family of FreeBSD. We have added significant functionality to the ipfw code in -curremt but would like to have this same functionality in the version we actually use for the product. (i.e. 2.2 series) There is an interface change involved in the ipfw changes, but the command-line view remains compatible. The question is whether this is acceptable in 2.2 considering the limited use of this interface. I'd like to back-port the -current changes to 2.2. While we presently have a system that allows us to selectively use our own files instead of those coming in from freebsd.org, that does have problems in some ways and we'd rather keep such things to a minimum. If there are no objections, I'd like to merge in the changes from -current (now several weeks old) into 2.2 (actually I'd directly import our 2.2 based patches that have been in testing for several months now.) If there are violent objections please speak up now!! I'll try to address any problems that are raised.. julian.