On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:54:40PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:47:40PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
There is no consensus that this package should be removed. Since I am still
willing to maintain it, I don't believe removal is appropriate at this time.
I
severity 30994 serious
thanks
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:13:25PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2005 23.27, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 16, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels
up to 2.4 still have
On Monday 16 May 2005 23.27, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 16, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels
up to 2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so
theoretically people could still be using it with current
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels up to
2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so theoretically people
could still be using it with current kernels.
cc'ing debian-devel. If the consensus there is that the package should be
removed, I'll request
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:49:01AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels up to
2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so theoretically people
could still be using it with current kernels.
cc'ing debian-devel. If the
On May 16, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels up to
2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so theoretically people
could still be using it with current kernels.
Wait until sarge has been released and then
6 matches
Mail list logo
