[Question] Questions about the BusyBox specification.

[Rich Felker]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:47:45PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote:
> Hi Rich!
> 
> > Obviously something like that isn't acceptable for inclusion.
> > It was probably just a hacked-up version of upstream iptables.
> 
> Just as a question. I did not look into that very deep.
> 
> You are talking about iptables. I thought newer kernel have a
> different firewall, with a complete different language/interpreter.
> Is that really intentional to look still at the old iptables?
> Wouldn't it be better to implement applets of the new firewall
> rules, giving also other users a push to use the new firewall
> infrastructure.

I was under the impression that most users/products are still using
the iptables interface, despite it having a new backend that they
could use directly. It wouldn't hurt to have both, but a
command-line-compatible version of iptables is probably more important
from a user perspective.

Rich