Re: Proposal: rename of arptables.git and ebtables.git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.



[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux