Le 30/03/2019 à 20:26, Michael van Elst a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:10:21PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
>
>> ... sure, meanwhile you didn't really answer to the core of the issue, which
>> I think was stated clearly by Sevan ...
>
> The issue is that we need to work on npf before we can drop other code.
... the questions raised were: why would someone use an insecure firewall? ...
and isn't it irresponsible to provide an insecure firewall? ... you still
fail to answer ... I see fewer and fewer reasons to keep talking to you,
given your clear inability to answer in good faith ...
Also, this is a plan to depreciate, not remove from the tree tomorrow. Declaring it for all to see that it is a rotting, festering caucus is a good thing. Maybe, it will spur someone to fix that. Extremely unlikely, but possible. It does let the users know with enough time to migrate and/or enhance npf to meet their needs. It starts to break the log jam that has lead to three under supported firewalls in the tree.
Warner