Darren Reed wrote:
If you make them non-optional, which is what started this thread,
then you *are* talking about having to add an option in to get
rid of them.
Seriously, Terry, how many NO_foo options exist, today ?
Any non-zero number of them is too many. Personally, I also
dislike
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:29:19PM +0200, Vallo Kallaste vallo wrote:
Yes, and this undefined symbols message will make no sense
from user perspective.
Then fix it. The fix is trivial:
[description of possible fix snipped]
As I've stated several times and as you most certainly
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
I'm really not a fan of NO_PFIL_HOOKS as an option.
I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but options PFIL_HOOKS in GENERIC.
Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STABLE
to 5.0.
If you make them non-optional, which is what started this
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
I'm really not a fan of NO_PFIL_HOOKS as an option.
I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but options PFIL_HOOKS in GENERIC.
Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STABLE
to 5.0.
If you make
Darren Reed wrote:
This is a reasonable argument... if it's possible to tune it so
that it's fast. Hacking in the IP Filter hooks unonditionally
for code that can't really be distributed as part of the system
because of its license, and thus making things slower, with no
chance to make
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
Darren states that PFIL code was derived from NetBSD so there are no
licensing issues.
This is Darren Reed's ipfilter.c code, which he will not allow
to be distributed modified, and so Theo got all upset and diked
it out of OpenBSD , and then wrote a clone of it, right?
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
Darren states that PFIL code was derived from NetBSD so there are no
licensing issues.
This is Darren Reed's ipfilter.c code, which he will not allow
to be distributed modified, and so Theo got all upset and
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
I'm really not a fan of NO_PFIL_HOOKS as an option.
I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but options PFIL_HOOKS in GENERIC.
Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STABLE
to 5.0.
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
[...]
The original posting in this thread gave a patch to unconditionalize
the PFIL_HOOKS thing, so that the ipfilter module could load on a
default kernel, without having to do a reasonable amount of work.
ipfilter being the only code
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:46:44PM -0800, Sam Leffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS
#error You must specify PFIL_HOOKS when using ipfilter
#endif
Unfortunately there's no way that I know to express this if ipfilter is
loaded as a module.
Duh, there'll probably be
Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:46:44PM -0800, Sam Leffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS
#error You must specify PFIL_HOOKS when using ipfilter
#endif
Unfortunately there's no way that I know to express this if ipfilter is
loaded as a module.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:30:42AM -0800, Terry Lambert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:46:44PM -0800, Sam Leffler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS #error You must specify PFIL_HOOKS when
using ipfilter #endif
Unfortunately
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:30:42AM -0800, Terry Lambert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:46:44PM -0800, Sam Leffler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS #error You must specify PFIL_HOOKS
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
Unfortunately nobody cares to look into PR database (conf/44576)
In case PFIL_HOOKS really slows IP processing I don't mind keeping this
out of GENERIC, however it should be noted in UPDATING and release notes.
I did
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:27:59PM +1100, Darren Reed wrote the words in effect of:
Well someone has blown my cover from developers and has asked here
what I was trying to be more surrepticious about!
In some email I received from Sam Leffler, sie wrote:
A teeny-weeny issue I would like to
Maybe we should put in the release notes, that:
PFIL_HOOKS is required for IPFILTER
The right thing is to force the dependency in the code (I don't think
there's a way to express it to config). The ipfilter code should probably
have something like
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS
#error You must specify
Maybe we should put in the release notes, that:
PFIL_HOOKS is required for IPFILTER
The right thing is to force the dependency in the code (I don't think
there's a way to express it to config). The ipfilter code should probably
have something like
#ifndef PFIL_HOOKS
#error You must
17 matches
Mail list logo
