| From: | "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:33:01 +0100 |
On Friday, 4. February 2005 14:05, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > A word from "the masses": this is completely justified -- developer's -- > > point of view. On the other hand: cleaning of the code per se gives > > plenty of opportunities to break what's working. Like, reducing vinum > > functionality (or breaking it), or having ipfw removed. Doesn't look > > good. > Concerning the removal of ipfw1, it won't happen soon. Once ipfw2 > fully works, it can die. Another requirement or ipfw(2) is to use > the normal firewall API, since it currently hooks into way too > much places directly. This means an improvement in usability too, > because ipfw would be fully dynamically loadable. i'm working on that (= ipfw into pfil) cheers simon -- /"\ \ / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign / \ Against HTML Mail and News
Attachment:
pgp00006.pgp
Description: PGP signature