On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 15:33 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > $ l *TTL* *TOS* > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 3276 Dec 25 00:09 libipt_TTL.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 592 Jan 9 03:12 libipt_TTL.man > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 11680 Jan 8 13:36 libipt_TTL.oo > -rwxr-xr-x 1 jengelh users 14050 Jan 8 13:36 libipt_TTL.so > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 7795 Dec 25 00:09 libxt_TOS.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 1152 Jan 9 03:12 libxt_TOS.man > -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 19280 Jan 8 13:36 libxt_TOS.oo > -rwxr-xr-x 1 jengelh users 21578 Jan 8 13:36 libxt_TOS.so
Thats what i meant: libipt_TTL.so is there libipt_TOS.so is not there (instead we have libxt_TOS.so). In previous versions (that debian etch carries) both libipt_TTL.so and libipt_TOS.so. Looking at xtables at the moment - thanks for your hard work. There are a few routines that are shared by apps like iptables/iptables6 etc that are defined on one and then used by others (I think it works because they are all compiled at the same time) - should those be moved to xtables? some examples: - merge_options(), free_opts(), check_inverse(), exit_error() etc. If you answer is "yes" and you dont have cycles i could send a patch later (for now i just will leave them as part of ipt). cheers, jamal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
