On Friday 2011-12-30 01:05, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>I'm thinking about including this tool into the iptables tree, instead >>>of distributing it separately, but I may change my mind. Let me know >>>if you have any preference. >> >>It would pose - just formally - the question how many more tools we >>intend to ship with iptables. For example, try to find an answer as to >>why conntrack-tools and ipset are separate instead of being included in >>iptables. > >Good question. > >From what I see (because the policy is not clear to me either), I can >extract that it's a matter of how big (in terms of LOC) the project is >and how many changes you expect from that code. Well, do you expect nfacct to grow to proportions similar to ipset or conntrack-tools? As for nfnl_osf, it certainly has not reached that threshold (and is unlikely to do so in the near future), and therefore I move to keep it. >For nfnl_osf, we can move it to one standalone tool. >Probably it's better to avoid polluting iptables tree with other >projects and provide standalone trees for everyone. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
