Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:32:11AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > On Friday 2018-06-29 11:19, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > >Not sure this is worth this change. > > > > > >I would prefer conversion to autotools is just as transparent as > > >possible. > > > > And that means what exactly, splitting the patch to that effect? > > > > >Having said this, as Florian mentioned already, modernizing and > > >ebtables are two things that are not really worth. > > > > Well I still disagree, because like I mentioned already (too), > > integration into the iptables source tree needs .am-ification anyway, > > and coincidentally that is what happened. > > Not sure we're on the same page. We're not going to merge ebtables > source code into the iptables tree, this is out of scope. What it has > been already integrated into the iptables tree is the ebtables > compatibility layer, and that is already there. Yes, thanks for clarifying. I poorly worded my first reply about integrating ebtables, I was only talking about ebtables-using-nf_netlink. I think it would be great to integrate this more, i.e. also have a 'xtables --bridge -A INPUT ...' that reuses xtables syntax and not the ebtables-specific one for instance (we need to keep the ebtables specific one of course for compatibility). We'll also need ebtables-save/restore eventually (again, using nf_netlink). So I'm leaning towards not applying this, sorry. I did apply the first patch, as its a useful improvement on its own. -- 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
