Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:21:07 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> 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: <20040301012107.GA54337@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200402291611.45616.wes@softweyr.com> References: <200402260234.i1Q2YDx1014240@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040226061846.GB15864@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20040227182325.GA81744@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200402291611.45616.wes@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040301012107.GA54337>