[Bug 1036320] Review Request: nftables - Netfilter Tables userspace utillites

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320



--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)
> > Dependency has been renamed!
> 
> Haha! It would have been better to not review that one so quickly.
> 
> Just kidding. Temporarily adding Provides to libnftables for virtual package
> names may suffice as a quick work-around,
> 
>   Provides: libnftnl%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>   %{?_isa:Provides: libnftnl = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> and a corresponding thing in the -devel pkg.
> 
> Hopefully upstream will not rename again, and then a single Rename Request
> could be opened.

I'm waiting for things to stablize a bit upstream before filing a new review
request on libnftnl. 
(for example, the 1.0.0 release has a horribly broken pkgconfig with the old
names still in it). 

> 
> [...]
> 
> > If I make them non executable, find-debuginfo breaks.
> 
> That would be very unusual. They are only scripts.

Indeed, and now I can't duplicate it. ;)

> 
> > I think this development is too early to decide that
> 
> True. Being aware of the dangers is what's important, and rpmlint output
> must be mentioned in the review to meet the guidelines. If a future update
> wants to modify the scripts, but the user has modified them before, RPM
> treating them like config files may lead to problems depending on how/when
> the files get executed. That's less of a problem, if only the user runs them
> manually. More of a problem, if they get integrated somehow (even if only
> the user does that after modifying them) and if they would not run anymore
> without errors. That could be worse than incompatible changes to a config
> file, but of course, in upgrades one can break ordinary config files, too
> (with the important changes only entering the .rpmnew file).
> 
> Currently, the scripts look more like examples for "nft -f …", IMO.

Right. A lot of it will depend on how Fedora intends to move forward to it and
how firewalld and other consumers want things setup. For now, I think just
shipping them as config files for people who want a basic iptables-like setup
makes sense. 

Anyhow, will soon send in a new review for libnftnl and once thats finished up,
will update this review to use that. 

Thanks for all the comments.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]