Re: libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:23:58PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2011-12-29 19:47, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> 
> >Hi!
> >
> >JFYI: I just uploaded libnetfilter_acct to git.netfilter.org.
> >
> >http://git.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=libnetfilter_acct.git;a=summary
> >
> >This library provides the programming interface (API) to the Netfilter
> >extended accounting infrastructure. It includes the documentation in
> >doxygen format and a couple of examples.
> >
> >The first client of this library will be the `nfacct' tool.
> >
> >I'm thinking about including this tool into the iptables tree, instead
> >of distributing it separately, but I may change my mind. Let me know
> >if you have any preference.
> 
> It would pose - just formally - the question how many more tools we 
> intend to ship with iptables. For example, try to find an answer as to 
> why conntrack-tools and ipset are separate instead of being included in 
> iptables.

Good question.

>From what I see (because the policy is not clear to me either), I can
extract that it's a matter of how big (in terms of LOC) the project is
and how many changes you expect from that code.

> I am not particular for or against, since there is already e.g. nfnl_osf 
> (and libipq...) in the iptables tree, for a lack of a better place.

QUEUE should be scheduled for removal IMO, I'd take a patch for
that. People already had time the time to migrate to NFQUEUE.

Unless someone comes with some strong argument to keep it in the tree.

For nfnl_osf, we can move it to one standalone tool.

Probably it's better to avoid polluting iptables tree with other
projects and provide standalone trees for everyone.