> >So ... the key word in Erich's comment is "primitive". If one's ends > > are simple, LEAF setup requirements probably are too demanding. But > > complex needs require complex solutions, and that is what all the > > LEAF and related-project (Shorewall, for example) developers seem > > interested in supporting. > > > >Yes, the existence of multiple LEAF branches does complicate things > > a bit, but blaming this diversity for the greater complexity of > > LEAF misses a lot of the point ... that LEAF configuration is more > > complicated than router-in-a-box solutions precisely because it can > > do more complicated things.
Ok, with this line in thought being pointed out. In less than a week, I can presently turn out a set of custom images of several present LEAF variants that: 1) Provides a general firewall. 2) Provides a web-based interface linked to internal ip's w/ virtually no security (other than name/password). 3) Is simple to setup due to lack of configuration options. Is this what you desire to have available??? I feel that several others in the past have likely come this far in development, but feel the need not to release it due to the massive amount of specific request for more rarely needed options that don't necessarily keep everything simple (or on a floppy). Personally, I feel the upcoming development with the "web-based configuration" thread would be preferrable in the long run. > Lots of people in the team have done little (or even big) extensions > to the base threads. Some of these externsions may have found their > way into the distribution. I would like to see a distribution tree > with sources included, embracing as much additional stuff as is seen > fit by the lead developers and I am prepared to help where I can with > as much time as I can pry loose. I believe the community can profit > from such a model and who knows, maybe we have success. I believe > Ewald has expressed his dedication too and certainly others may want > to get involved. > > If you think this is too big a bite for anyone's appetite let me > know. Building a type of "ports" system such as David is working on interests me tremendously, however after several short precursive peeks at his tree leaves me with several inpending questions: Is the target system compiling the source itself? 1) If so, what compiler is available on the target system (floppy?)? 2) If the target system is not compiling the code, the user must use some form of *NIX system to compile on.... this pretty much eliminates M$ users. 3) if the compilation is done by the system remotely, is the SF compile farm (or some other system) going to work with any GPL restrictions (distributing binaries?). These are simply concerns due to my lack of understanding of "port" systems outside of LFS, which requires a Linux compiler on the host system. A simple description of the process being proposed would likely build more dialog on the topic. Any direction this is taken is going to have a baseline environment, which will affect the required licensing or end-user in some way. I'm still attempting to figure out what the required system can/will be. Thanks for the thoughts, the effort, and the development! -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: AMD - Your access to the experts on Hammer Technology! Open Source & Linux Developers, register now for the AMD Developer Symposium. Code: EX8664 http://www.developwithamd.com/developerlab _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
