From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Liddicott Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4332873A.20804@dbamsystems.com> References: <200207041911.08783.fabrice@celestix.com> <43328683.5040400@ufomechanic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fabrice@celestix.com Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org In-Reply-To: <43328683.5040400@ufomechanic.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Why am I replying to 3 year old posts? Saaid Kahn's recent "no subject" post caused Thunderbird to artificially thread all the other "no subject" posts of the past onto it so I thought they were recent. Foolish Thunderbird, foolish me. Apologies. Sam Amin Azez wrote: >Fabrice MARIE wrote: > > >>Hello, >> >>Attached patch should fix the tftp conntrack patch to >>make it apply properly again. >> >> >... > > >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>diff -uNr cvs/netfilter/userspace/patch-o-matic/extra/tftp-conntrack-nat.patch.makefile-3 netfilter/userspace/patch-o-matic/extra/tftp-conntrack-nat.patch.makefile-3 >>--- cvs/netfilter/userspace/patch-o-matic/extra/tftp-conntrack-nat.patch.makefile-3 2002-04-15 19:33:13.000000000 +0800 >>+++ netfilter/userspace/patch-o-matic/extra/tftp-conntrack-nat.patch.makefile-3 2002-07-04 18:43:00.000000000 +0800 >>@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ >>-# NAT helpers >>+# NAT helpers >> obj-$(CONFIG_IP_NF_NAT_TFTP) += ip_nat_tftp.o >> >> > >Does this patch actually do anything? > >Sam > > >