[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Marc <telenieko at gmail dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] M0n0cache
 Date:  Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:11:44 +0100
Maybe you don't need to do a fork of m0n0wall, If we hold on the
"modularity" that was thought for m0n0wall's future you could make the
"cache" stuff a module for m0n0wall and then create m0n0 images that only
have that package or a few. That way you stay with exactly the same core,
kernel, xml and so on.

Depending on how the "packages" or "modules" are finally implemented you
could really achieve that this way having some advantatges, for those who
use PC's for m0n0wall they could use only one box for firewall, nat, shaping
and the cache. And those with more machines could use the "only-caching"
image on a box, the "only-firewall" image on another... on that I'm refering
to the ROMKitchen idea that was previously posted.

Just wanted to remember that hopefully the next generation m0n0wall will be
modular :)

See you,

On 12/13/05, Jonathan De Graeve <Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be> wrote:
> At my work were in the progress of migrating our servers to new
> hardware. One of these servers is a webcache running linux with squid in
> wccp v2 mode.
(not all text quoted)