Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:16:56 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> 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: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402291816240.50107-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040301012107.GA54337@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0402291816240.50107-100000>