| 1 |
Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I had firestarter-1.0.3 emerged for quite some time. I hadn't really |
| 3 |
> used it, but I'm a bit surprised now to find that it's interfering |
| 4 |
> with normal emerges because it's got a big red "M" smacked on it. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I suppose that means there's a problem with it, and it's explained in |
| 7 |
> some forum or list that I don't normally get. But now I'd like a |
| 8 |
> clue: what's the {prognosis, workaround, fix, alternative}. As I |
| 9 |
> mentioned, I hadn't really started to use it, but I'd like to have a |
| 10 |
> better firewall tool than building iptables scripts in vim. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is from the Gentoo dev list. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The upstream development for firestarter has been dead for some time |
| 16 |
> (last news update Jul 31 2005). Recent changes to the netfilter code |
| 17 |
> in the kernel have caused firestarter not to work (see bug #179792). |
| 18 |
> That bug has a patch that fixes that particular problem but the fact that |
| 19 |
> upstream is dead, the several other open bugs about firestarter and the |
| 20 |
> fact that I no longer use it myself mean I'm masking it for removal. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I feel there are several good alternatives in net-firewall/ to use as |
| 23 |
> replacements for the iptables-generating aspect of firestarter. If |
| 24 |
> someone |
| 25 |
> would like to pick up and maintain this package, they're welcome to it, |
| 26 |
> otherwise, I'll remove it in thirty days. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Michael Sterrett |
| 29 |
> -Mr. Bones.- |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So, if you like firestarter, better say something pretty soon. ;-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
That help any?? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) :-) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives