Re: [RFC PATCH IPTABLES 0/12]: matches/targets unification

[Martin Josefsson <gandalf@wlug.westbo.se>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1445 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 11:25 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> We currently have lots of extensions in iptables for non-mainline
> matches and targets, some obsolete, some already decided against
> merging and some that might be merged in the future. For the
> extensions belonging to a feature that won't be merged, the same
> argument applies as to POM, they increase the maintenance burden
> and should really be maintained along with the kernel patch (and
> pom already supports patching iptables).
> 
> More problematic are extensions for stuff that might get merged.
> In many cases so far they were included by distributors if
> compiled by default, but when merging a feature we often noticed
> that the ABI had problems like 32/64 bit issues and needed to be
> changed before merging, which effectively broke compatibility.
> I think it would be preferable to have people wait until their
> distribution releases a new version to use a new feature than
> have strange and unexplained errors.
> 
> So, what I'm proposing is to remove all extensions that are
> neither part of 2.4 or 2.6 from iptables, pushing those for
> externally maintained patches to the patch maintainers, those
> for patches maintained in pom to pom, and delete the rest.
> 
> Comments?

Yes I think this is what we should do. Iirc this was loosely discussed
during a workshop, it's time to actually do it now. Go for it!

-- 
/Martin

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]