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