On Friday 2009-01-23 10:51, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Friday 2009-01-23 03:22, NICOLAS BOULIANE wrote: >>> Thanks for this patch. I'll update my patchlet repository as soon as I get home. >>> >>> peace, >>> acidfu. >> >> People still use POM patchlets? Gosh... > >I'm planning to give a spin to POM to keep some (minor number of) >patches in it. For example, AFAIK xtables-addons cannot contain patches >like ACCOUNT, since they require changes in the main kernel. That is true. But the few extensions that I know of that patch kernel files (ACCOUNT, layer7, ..) are not POM archives, but true unified-diff style patches, making it a lot easier to patch them in because most SCM or near-SCM tools (like quilt and stgit) support unidiffs. >My opinion on pom-ng and xtables-addons is still the same. I think that >they don't have a reason with the current kernel development cycle. Sort of they do (both). Almost like linux-staging, perhaps. I really don't know what to make of extensions being ... not really rejected, but not accepted either ... that have their place in a daily life IMHO. >And, of course, if Nicolas wants to keep its patchset in pom-ng updated, >I would be OK with it. Sure. But it would be beneficial for the end-user to receive the optimizations made since too. -- 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
