On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:09:25PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:02:23PM -0700, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> > I have a few packages that I feel unless someone else is willing
> > to take them over should be orphan'd and remove from the distribution.
> >
> > The first such package in my care is gfcc which has had no
> > upstream activity and only handles the older ipchains firewalls. This
> > makes it useless for anyone wanting to use iptables instead to have
> > stateful packet inspection. I would recommend this for removal unless
> > someone has some strong objection to it's removal and wants to take it
> > over.
>
> Along the same lines, I'm thinking that ipac should be removed. It only
> works with ipchains, so it isn't useful with any kernel from the last
> few years. (I don't use it myself.)
>
> I think we still have some platforms that require 2.2 (some 68k
> variants, one Sparc?); are those likely to be used as gateways requiring
> firewalling and/or accounting?
I'm not sure about accounting, but "using it as a server/firewall" seems
to be one of the major usages for m68k hardware, as it seems.
However, that is likely not the case for 68k macs, as those usually have
only one ethernet port; and since it's m68k mac which requires 2.2...
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature