On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23 2013 at 10:59:28AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >> >> b) provide a separate utility to generate the BPF filter in text-based > >> >> format from some utility that accepts tcpdump-like syntax. The utility > >> >> can be distributed in the utils directory and it would not be > >> >> mandatory to compile it if libpcap is not present. > > [...] > >> > I would go with b) for now; we can always move to a) later on, but not > >> > the other way around (would kill backwards compatibility). > >> > >> This sounds like the consensus (for the record, I also prefer this less > >> disruptive approach). In that case, I can submit a revised libxt_bpf with your > >> suggested changes right away, Pablo, and we can leave the separate > >> userspace tool for a later commit. > > > > Either way is fine, but please we should have that utility compiler > > integrated in the iptables tree by when 3.9-rc1 is released. > > Okay. I'll prepare a separate patch with the pcap-based utility, then. > > Since utils is built as part of the root make invocation, I think it's > better to test for pcap.h in the root configure.ac and add a test in > utils/Makefile.am to build this tool if found, as opposed to creating > a separate configure.ac under utils. We can also discuss these > details after the first version of the patch, of course. That's fine by now, and it's way less bloat. -- 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
