From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Welte Subject: The future of patch-o-matic-ng Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:35:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20060406073514.GE6887@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> References: <20060405152628.GI20558@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ALfTUftag+2gvp1h" Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Patrick McHardy Return-path: To: Grzegorz Janoszka Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --ALfTUftag+2gvp1h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:52:48PM +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Harald Welte wrote: >=20 > >So unless somebody actually wants to become patch-o-matic maintainer > >(yes, we once had somebody for that job), I think it's going to die. >=20 > I can try.=20 Well, as it seems I should have read netfilter-devel in chronological order rather than backwards. Patrick has already posted on how to proceed with patch-o-matic-ng a couple of days ago: Have the original authors (or other people who want to maintain patchlets) host their own repositories. Patch-o-matic-ng would then mostly only contain a list of URL's to such remote repositories. This way there is no need for the netfilter developers themselves to maintain patchsets. > Pom is used by many people, please don't let it die. If you have > nobody to take care of it, give it to me. As indicated in Patricks mail, there's a 30 day grace period. Until then the original authors (if they care) or other people can take maintenance for individual patchlets and send us URL's to those repositories. We will add them to our list file, and distribute a 'runme' script which downloads those repositories off the net. If you want to help, I suggest to wait for those patchlets that nobody takes care of, and run a repository for them. Also, I assume that there is a lot that can be done to improve that patchlet-handling script, i.e. add suport for GPG signature checking and the like. I suggest you coordinate with Patrick on this. If any of the 'patchlet maintainers' require a place where they can put repositories online via http/ftp, please let me know, we have people.netfilter.org accounts exactly for this purpose. --=20 - Harald Welte http://netfilter.org/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie --ALfTUftag+2gvp1h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFENMSyXaXGVTD0i/8RAt6NAJ9b+Y8FfdChpogW7pCZxQYL5pNSWACePQg+ RkakRUdD4bPBUJFRWWhA+UM= =9EUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ALfTUftag+2gvp1h--