From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Newkirk Subject: Re: more questions about kernel config options for iptables Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:09:42 -0400 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200304081109.42705.netfilter@newkirk.us> References: Reply-To: netfilter@newkirk.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: iptables mailing list On Tuesday 08 April 2003 09:54 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On 8 Apr 2003, Cedric Blancher wrote: > > My 0.02=A4 about this is that I personaly prefer a configuration > > script that reflect reality, than something more "user convenient" > > that could fool people about the way things work. Netfilter insides, > > as well as kernel insides, are already complicated enough to me, for > > I do not need stuff that could make me misunderstand something. > > Reality is that NAT depends on conntrack. Your point would be to > > invert this for user's sake, and this is, imho, a baaaaad thing ;) > > > > I don't know if any of them are reading this thread, but if we could > > have some core developper's point of vue about his, would be great. > > > > It is a very tough subject to discuss how kernel configuration must > > be presented. I wouldn't show nerd's behaviours, e.g. dumb users do > > not compile kernel, but I tend to think that if someone wants to > > build its own kernel, then it's up to him to (try to ?) understand > > how it is going and what are the choices he's about to make. > > yes, i agree with this. i think i'll just ponder how to reorganize > that menu to, first of all, have more informative help screens and, > second, to add what i *think* we agree on is some missing > dependencies. Reorganization and clearer help texts would be nice. If the long-term=20 intention is to 'simplify', I really think a more popular approach would=20 be to offer multiple levels of detail. In my first response I suggested=20 "make easyconfig" - that grew out of a conversation I had some time ago=20 regarding the complexitly of configuring a kernel prior to build. Make=20 oldconfig can be helpful, but the ability to pull in the configuration=20 of the current runnning kernel, set it as the base, then offer looser,=20 more generalized selections that hide the lower levels would be helpful=20 for the 'casual' builder. If we want to make kernel building reasonable=20 for the 'average' windows emigre then such an approach would seem=20 useful. And I think that needs to be a consideration. I for one would=20 enjoy clearer (or even extant!) help texts in the config process, and=20 reorganization of options might help, but I want to have access to=20 everything, not have config questions spoon-fed. OT - are there any plans to bring video card options together, instead of= =20 the current scheme where they are scattered through Character Devices,=20 Multimedia Devices, and Console Drivers? > rday > > p.s. is the rest of this list also getting auto-vacation messages > from respond-dgour? just wondering if it's coming from *this* > list. Yes, it is. As of about 8 months ago I have a filter to auto-delete=20 them. Every few months they seem to start up again. (must be nice to=20 get that many vacations, some for several weeks! :^) j