cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.h if_pfsync.c if_pfsync.h pf.c pf_ioctl.c pf_norm.c pf_osfp.c pf_table.c pfvar.h src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c

[Julian Elischer]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, David O'Brien wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 04:11:45PM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> > On Friday 27 February 2004 10:23 am, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:18:46AM +0000, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > We do not plan to remove ipfw or ipfilter at this time nor do we have
> > > > plans to remove them, until pf receives further evaluation by the
> > > > user base, there would be no mandate or grounding for such a
> > > > decision.
> > >
> > > If any of ipfw, ipfilter, or ip6fw are candidates for removal, then
> > > it needs to be done before 5-STABLE is branched.  Otherwise, we need
> > > to find individuals to actively maintain each of these throughout the
> > > lifetime of 5.X (a 3 to 5 year time span).
> > 
> > ipfw2 is being actively maintained and developed.  
> 
> Semi-maintained.  The ipfw2 developer (1) doesn't develope with -CURRENT,
> and (2) never tests the !i386 case.  pf(4) is much better maintained
> across all our platforms.
> 
ipfw has a LARGE installed base who will be very pissed off if you
remove it..  Don't.