In some email I received from David W. Chapman Jr., sie wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 02:20:00PM -0400, Jerry Murdock wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Steve Shorter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Jerry Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Darren Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:31 PM > > Subject: Re: IPFilter 3.4.28 > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:30:07AM -0400, Jerry Murdock wrote: > > > > > > > > Are you planning to update FreeBSD -STABLE once the tree opens back up? > > > > Seems like a short "fixed in -stable" answer would be easier to support > > > > from the FreeBSD perspective as well as yours. > > > > > > It would be logical to have it in 4.6-SECURITY, but perhaps > > > having a IPFilter in ports is the best way to do this. > > > > > The security branch would certainly make sense considering what IPF is. I > > think that would probably imply updating -stable as well, which is fine. > > > > I like the idea of a port but from the prior discussion having a port sounds > > like it may cause more questions/grumbling than not having one. I'd be > > grateful to have a port as an option, I'm just not sure I'd want to be in > > the maintainer's shoes. > > It can still go into 4.6-RELEASE if it is really necessary, but we > may be short timewise since there would be almost 0 day MFC.
It's now in FreeBSD-current.
