From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 29 18:17:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2307416A4CE; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CCD43D2D; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004030102165901300hdl47e>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 02:16:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA50952; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:16:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:16:56 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "David O'Brien" In-Reply-To: <20040301012107.GA54337@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Wes Peters cc: Max Laier cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Steve Kargl 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:17:00 -0000 On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 04:11:45PM -0800, Wes Peters wrote: > > 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. > > Semi-maintained. The ipfw2 developer (1) doesn't develope with -CURRENT, > and (2) never tests the !i386 case. pf(4) is much better maintained > across all our platforms. > ipfw has a LARGE installed base who will be very pissed off if you remove it.. Don't.