It has been my intention to continue the beta period for 4.0 through the summer and to release 4.0 in the September time frame. Several factors have caused me to rethink that schedule.
- The rate of problem reports against Shorewall-perl has dropped rapidly and the code seems to be quite stable. - The 4.0 Documentation has come together more quickly than I had planned. - 3.4 and 4.0 are now on nearly identical code bases except for Shorewall-perl. I have patch files to make up for the differences so it is now possible to make maintenance updates to 3.4 and roll those updates into 4.0 with almost no additional effort. In light of these factors, I'm thinking of producing one more 4.0 Beta release then releasing 4.0.0 RC1. Assuming that the release candidate doesn't encounter problems, I would anticipate final release some time in late July or early August. Because supporting 3.4 will not present any burden over supporting 4.0, I plan to break the "two supported releases" rule and to support 3.2, 3.4 and 4.0 until 4.2 comes along. Comments? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key ======================================================== Tom - I noticed Herr Kirchdoerfer's response and have an entirely (maybe unfounded) reason for not migrating to 4.x. First off, I love the capabilities, the support, even the sporadic scoldings (which I can say in my case at lease, deserved). To my knowledge, a hack like myself has NOT been compromised since starting to run Shorewall. But, therein lies the rub. I happen to be using SuSE, and older (now unsupported) distro. But, what little mentoing I have received, is to never leave the tools for your "desturction" on the firewall box. So with SuSE's YaST, I have to meticulously delete packages I don't want, remove X, etc., etc., when I install. So when I (was able to) update, I relied on the SuSE YaST tool to update the kernel, and in keeping with leave tools/packages off, have to rely then on the binary distribution because I don't even install a compiler on the Shorewall box. So this puts me at a disadvantage from some tools, such as Perl, which has a great library of modules. But, there's the dilemma, and, maybe my ill conceived view, of my security -- I do NOT have the tools to make it easier to be compromised. So from that perspective, NOT having Perl seems to be more secure. A buddy of mine says that if "they're gonna getcha, they'll getcha" but I like to think otherwise with great tools, such as Shorewall. But, on the other hand, I don't want to leave the gun sitting out for the granchildren to play with, to use a stupid analogy. Comments, thoughts ? When I rebuild the firewall, do with a Perl installation as well ? Bill A sufficiently talented fool ========================================================
signature.asc
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
