[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent to package: ippfvsadm



Remco van de Meent <remco@debian.org> wrote:

> In the new 2.0.36pre Linux kernels, there are some changes that prevent the
> ipportfw package from working anymore. 
>
> A new program has been writter by some people, called ippfvsadm. As it isn't
> clear if the current changes won't make it into 2.0.36 (release), I doubt if
> it's necessairy to include this package in the archive right now. It's been
> released under the GPL by the way, of course.

And in 2.1 kernels it is 'ipchains' that does the same thing... I finaly
found a wrapper (in the package netbase) but it was not 'in use', I had to
rename it...

Could this wrapper be made the 'original ipfwadm', which calles the correct
firewall administration program (ipfwadm/ipchains/ippfvsadm), depending on
kernel?

My TCPQuota depends on the 'ipfwadm' binary (unless I can find a way to do
the same thing in Perl, ideas anyone?). Sure, this should be up to the
admin, but can't we have the '/sbin/ipfwadm-wrapper' the 'one and only'
ipfwadm and have 'ippfvsadm' included in the netbase package instead of a
separate package, since the two others already are in netbase?

-- 
-- Microsoft: Do less with more.   UNIX on Intel: Do more with less. --
 Turbo     __ _     Debian GNU     Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just 
 ^^^^^    / /(_)_ __  _   ___  __  selective about who its friends are 
         / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ /          papadoc.nocrew.org          
  _ /// / /__| | | | | |_| |>  <  Turbo Fredriksson    turbo@tripnet.se
  \\\/  \____/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ Surrey/B.C./Canada      (604)572-3523
Debian Certified Linux Developer  PGP#788CD1A9   www5.tripnet.se/~turbo
------- PGP:  B7 92 93 0E 06 94 D6 22  98 1F 0B 5B FE 33 A1 0B --------

-- 
$400 million in gold bullion Cocaine Mossad ammunition Uzi FBI Rule
Psix SDI BATF Noriega Albanian Peking [Hello to all my fans in
domestic surveillance] NORAD Waco, Texas

Attachment: pgp1CyMmDADWT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: