From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] Remove support for compilation of conditional extensions Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:31:44 +0200 Message-ID: <480378E0.7030002@trash.net> References: <1208075154-5666-1-git-send-email-jengelh@computergmbh.de> <2b2e38a1bfc0069830bd5cfe535fa52b7ee8a0da.1208075035.git.jengelh@computergmbh.de> <4802FDD8.301@trash.net> <4803002E.9070701@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:44382 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759911AbYDNPbu (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:31:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> On Monday 2008-04-14 08:56, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>>> On Monday 2008-04-14 08:46, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>>> Was there some resolution on the discussion that this >>>>> is the way to go? I mainly would like to see an ACK >>>>> from Jozsef for this change before applying it. >>>>> >>>> There was some sort of positive agreement: >>>> >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter-devel/msg02729.html (ipset) >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter-devel/msg02727.html (condition) >>> Yes, "sort of". So far it seems most convenient to keep ipset in >>> iptables. What was the exact problem with these extensions again? >>> >> The problem is not the extensions themselves; but they do not compile >> due to a lack of their header files. Should it just be added? >> >> Should ipset instead be added to the kernel? > > No, I think the missing kernel header files (ip_set.h and ipt_set.h) > should be added to the iptables source. Yes, I agree.