Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree.
--
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
