On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:56:17 +0100
Martin Hejl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been
> no response on this list on the topic.

Sorry, Martin, I only read the list as a newsgroup, every week or so.

> Maybe having a branch that
> supports 2.6 kernel isn't all that important after all, despite the
> fact that the topic has been coming up every now and then since 2005
> (possibly earlier than that, but 2005 was the earliest I could find
> doing a quick search of the archives).

It's important to me because LEAF still seems by far the simplest
small, easily customizable distribution for running Shorewall; and the
latest Shorewall-4 with the excellent shorewall-perl compiler handles
IPsec only in the new kernel 2.6 style with nf-policy-match support.

Without really understanding the leadership structure of the project I
had assumed from a mailing list archive reading it was futile to work
on a kernel 2.6 branch; you seem to have proved otherwise, so perhaps I
will find the time to collaborate.

Like Charles, I am facing the prospect of "upgrading" to a much larger
and more complex distribution, although I have been more interested in
Alpine Linux than an actual mounted-disk-filesystem Debian install.

-- 
John Keith Hohm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel

Reply via email to