On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Monday 2008-04-14 08:56, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> On Monday 2008-04-14 08:46, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> > Was there some resolution on the discussion that this > >> > is the way to go? I mainly would like to see an ACK > >> > from Jozsef for this change before applying it. > >> > > >> There was some sort of positive agreement: > >> > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter-devel/msg02729.html (ipset) > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter-devel/msg02727.html (condition) > > > > Yes, "sort of". So far it seems most convenient to keep ipset in > > iptables. What was the exact problem with these extensions again? > > > The problem is not the extensions themselves; but they do not compile > due to a lack of their header files. Should it just be added? > > Should ipset instead be added to the kernel? No, I think the missing kernel header files (ip_set.h and ipt_set.h) should be added to the iptables source. Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
