On 12/4/18 11:57 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:50:46AM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >> On 11/28/18 2:10 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >>> On 11/28/18 1:44 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Now that the iptables.git repo offers arptables-nft and ebtables-nft, >>>> arptables.git holds arptables-legacy, etc, why we don't just rename the >>>> repos? >>>> >>>> * from arptables.git to arptables-legacy.git >>>> * from ebtables.git to ebtables-legacy.git >>>> >>>> This rename should help distros understand the differences between them >>>> and better accommodate the packaging of all the related tooling. >>>> >>>> Mind that the rename may have side effects in tarball >>>> generation/publishing etc. I would expect the new arptables tarball to >>>> include the '-legacy' keyword, and same for ebtables. >>>> >>>> If we go ahead with the rename, a new release is worth having, >>>> announcing these changes as well. >>>> >>> >>> Also, >>> >>> please consider applying the attached patch. >>> >> >> ping :-) > > Phil suggested no rename of the trees, I can update the description in > git.netfilter.org to place LEGACY there. Concern as you mentioned is > that it may break existing links/scripts. Not sure git support > redirections from old repo URI to new one... > Most people use these tools from distributions and if using directly from git.netfilter.org they won't have problems finding a new URL. If manually downloading tarball from netfilter.org, even less problem. Distro packagers would have to refresh the upstream URL, sure, but that's really a minor thing compared to the big -legacy -nft movement, which requires a lot of other renaming and adjustments anyway. My suggestion of the rename of the .git repo is because I already detected several confused people who don't understand the relationship between arptables-legacy, arptables-nft and the .git repos they are served from (and same for ebtables). Also, worth considering that having the repo clearly stating -legacy in the name will help raise awareness of the -nft version, which could serve as another motivation to encourage migration. I don't even have a strong opinion on this :-) it was just a proposal bc I see several benefits. > I think it's fine to apply a patch to add the "-legacy" postfix as we > do in iptables. > > Are you OK with this approach? > I would apply the -legacy renaming patch regardless. We already did this with arptables after the agreement @ NFWS. In fact, me sending the patch now (instead of last summer) is just my lack of time to write it earlier :-) Also, once the patch is applied, we should consider a release of both arptables and ebtables now that iptables contains the -nft variant and is being used in the wild.
