From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Samad Subject: Re: Netfilter+IPsec patches in pom-ng now Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:34:05 +1000 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040420213405.GF19221@samad.com.au> References: <407CA248.3000302@trash.net> <20040420104853.GB19221@samad.com.au> <20040420132046.GC1357@obs.bg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4D0iojmU0rbTyz/6" Cc: Patrick McHardy , mludvig@suse.cz, guillaume@morinfr.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, JMChandonia@lbl.gov Return-path: To: Netfilter Development Mailinglist Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040420132046.GC1357@obs.bg> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --4D0iojmU0rbTyz/6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:20:47PM +0300, Ivan Mitev wrote: > > Patrick I have noted that 04 doesn't apply cleanly to 2.6.5 Have to admit I used a debian 2.6.5, will check it out >=20 > the only problem i noticed when patching kernel 2.6.5 was with patch 02 (= i use > the cvs versions of pom-ng and iptables of april 14). i'll try to check a= gain. >=20 > btw i'm experimenting with them for a few days now, and i didn't encounte= r any=20 > problem. everything's fine! >=20 > ivan >=20 >=20 --4D0iojmU0rbTyz/6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAhZdMkZz88chpJ2MRAmEPAJ9HBH4y7lZlrwL+BFxEtEvO0FwZwwCgl3GA OdIByRjQs94YgFPMXLlh/Po= =WwnV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4D0iojmU0rbTyz/6--