Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:45 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.h if_pfsync.c if_pfsync.h pf.c pf_ioctl.c pf_norm.c pf_osfp.c pf_table.c pfvar.h src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c Message-ID: <200402291611.45616.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <20040227182325.GA81744@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200402260234.i1Q2YDx1014240@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040226061846.GB15864@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20040227182325.GA81744@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 27 February 2004 10:23 am, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:18:46AM +0000, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> >
> > We do not plan to remove ipfw or ipfilter at this time nor do we have
> > plans to remove them, until pf receives further evaluation by the
> > user base, there would be no mandate or grounding for such a
> > decision.
>
> If any of ipfw, ipfilter, or ip6fw are candidates for removal, then
> it needs to be done before 5-STABLE is branched. Otherwise, we need
> to find individuals to actively maintain each of these throughout the
> lifetime of 5.X (a 3 to 5 year time span).
ipfw2 is being actively maintained and developed.
ipfilter I'm not so sure about, Darren doesn't seem to have been all that
active lately. I suspect the locking changes have given him reason to
hide, he usually prefers to wait until such states of flux have settled
out before he tries to repair what he sees as damage to ipfilter. ;^)
Your point about maintenance is well taken. No action of that magnitued
would be undertaken without a thorough bikeshed^Wdiscussion on -arch.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402291611.45616.wes>