From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject:
 Re: Duplicate files created by 'iptables 1.6.0' and 'ebtables 2.0.10-4'
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 23:42:03 +0200
Message-ID: <570825AB.1020907@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1460142217.30749.408.camel@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2685043590746465379=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============2685043590746465379==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On 08.04.2016 21:03, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Are you sure we have the requirements switched on in our kernel?

No, I'm definitely NOT sure! I'm not so deep into the current kernel
options to make a secure statement about this.

Furthermore, since I'm at work again (holidays are over, *sigh*), I
hadn't the time to test this more extensive. I had to put it on my long
term ToDo-list. The last build - without 'ebtables' - was built without
errors, but I didn't test it ONLINE yet! Right now I have the feeling
this will require a lot of adjustments to get it really running.
For now, the best will be to stay on the current release.

Best,
Matthias

> -Michael
> 
> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 17:06 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 01.04.2016 08:21, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Maybe we should stay on the last release?!
>> > For now, I'd say 'Yes'! I'll take a closer look at it!
>> For the records:
>> Right now I'm running a testbuild, based on 'next', with 'iptables
>> 1.6.0' but *without* 'ebtables'. We'll see.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>> 
> 


--===============2685043590746465379==--