Am 09.04.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
On 09.04, Alexander Holler wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
3. I don't see why admins have to use another set of names for constants
than developers. Inventing a new set of names for a list of constants for
which there already exist a very widely used set of names just leads to more
confusion. And if it's ok to invent new names, why does nft use
"param-problem" and not "parameter-problem"? Of course, I would suggest to
use the existing name icmp_parameterprob (like it's used in every
c/c++-source).
In case of ICMP we use the same names that iptables used, so this actually
spares admins from getting used to new constants. We're not going to use
source code identifiers, there's no benefit at all, especially if you
consider that Linux headers use different identifiers than the BSD headers.
nft isn't in use on BSD and if you think taking BSD out of a corner makes
sense, I wonder how compatible the names, nft uses, are, with what is used
by ipf or one of the other BSD firewall packages. As the answer is the names
are incompatible, arguing with BSD is nonsense here.
This is starting to annoy me. If you suggest to use names from headers, at
least do your homework. The BSD headers is what most of userspace uses, and
this is where ICMP_PARAMPROB originates. Linux uses ICMP_PARAMETERPROB.
I aggree that this discussion, which never really has begun, finally
ended in the mud. Feel free to throw out more accusations as I won't try
to discuss with you anymore.
--
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
