[PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[Phil Oester]

Attempting to run pom-ng's runme against an iptables snapshot
which has not yet had release.sh run in it will fail.  Update
docs to reflect this.

This closes bugzilla #538.

Phil

Signed-off-by: Phil Oester <kernel@linuxace.com>


diff -ruN pom-orig/README pom-new/README
--- pom-orig/README	2008-08-01 14:55:55.000000000 -0700
+++ pom-new/README	2008-08-02 16:03:04.000000000 -0700
@@ -2,9 +2,13 @@
    This is the patch-o-matic-ng distribution by the netfilter project
    (http://www.netfilter.org/)
 
-   As of iptables-1.2.7, patch-o-matic is distributed as a seperate
+   As of iptables-1.2.7, patch-o-matic is distributed as a separate
    package, available from ftp://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/patch-o-matic-ng.
 
+   NOTE: if you are building against an unreleased (snapshot) version
+   of iptables, make sure you have run release.sh in the iptables tree.
+   Otherwise, runme will fail as it won't find the iptables Makefile.
+

Re: [PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Saturday 2008-08-02 19:41, Phil Oester wrote:

>Attempting to run pom-ng's runme against an iptables snapshot
>which has not yet had release.sh run in it will fail.  Update
>docs to reflect this.
>
>This closes bugzilla #538.

I'd rather address it by stating its seemingly obsoletedness that
has been discussed in previous threads.
In other words, `svn rm * && svn commit`, and keep the repository
for history.

Re: [PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Saturday 2008-08-02 19:41, Phil Oester wrote:
> 
>> Attempting to run pom-ng's runme against an iptables snapshot
>> which has not yet had release.sh run in it will fail.  Update
>> docs to reflect this.
>>
>> This closes bugzilla #538.
> 
> I'd rather address it by stating its seemingly obsoletedness that
> has been discussed in previous threads.
> In other words, `svn rm * && svn commit`, and keep the repository
> for history.

We can do that, but for now I would prefer this patch since I don't
have the time for checking whether we still want anything.

The patch doesn't apply cleanly though:

patching file README
Hunk #1 FAILED at 2.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file README.rej

Not sure what the problem is ...

Re: [PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[Phil Oester]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> We can do that, but for now I would prefer this patch since I don't
> have the time for checking whether we still want anything.
>
> The patch doesn't apply cleanly though:
>
> patching file README
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 2.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file README.rej
>
> Not sure what the problem is ...

Neither am I, as I just verified it applies cleanly against
patch-o-matic-ng-20080814 snapshot.  Snapshot not reflecting SVN or
git reality?  Attached again to be sure.

Phil

[-- Attachment #2: patch-pom-docs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

diff -ruN pom-orig/README pom-new/README
--- pom-orig/README	2008-08-01 14:55:55.000000000 -0700
+++ pom-new/README	2008-08-02 16:03:04.000000000 -0700
@@ -2,9 +2,13 @@
    This is the patch-o-matic-ng distribution by the netfilter project
    (http://www.netfilter.org/)
 
-   As of iptables-1.2.7, patch-o-matic is distributed as a seperate
+   As of iptables-1.2.7, patch-o-matic is distributed as a separate
    package, available from ftp://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/patch-o-matic-ng.
 
+   NOTE: if you are building against an unreleased (snapshot) version
+   of iptables, make sure you have run release.sh in the iptables tree.
+   Otherwise, runme will fail as it won't find the iptables Makefile.
+
 ================================================================
 
 FOLLOW THESE STEPS:

Re: [PATCH] Update pom-ng docs for new iptables snapshots

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Phil Oester wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> We can do that, but for now I would prefer this patch since I don't
>> have the time for checking whether we still want anything.
>>
>> The patch doesn't apply cleanly though:
>>
>> patching file README
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 2.
>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file README.rej
>>
>> Not sure what the problem is ...
> 
> Neither am I, as I just verified it applies cleanly against
> patch-o-matic-ng-20080814 snapshot.  Snapshot not reflecting SVN or
> git reality?  Attached again to be sure.

Applied. Thanks Phil. Please, please sign-off-by your patches (even if
they are for the userspace tools, we're doing so since we switched to git).

-- 
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers