Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Samir Bellabes]

Hi Harald,

   It's seems that the file
   p-o-m/osf/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_osf.h
   is missing.
   Without it, ipt_osf can't be compile.
   thanks.

-- 
samir bellabes
sam@cerbere.dyndns.info

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1171 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:32:33AM +0200, Samir Bellabes wrote:
> Hi Harald,
> 
>    It's seems that the file
>    p-o-m/osf/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_osf.h
>    is missing.

Erm, it's not missing.  It is in the linux-2.4 and linux-2.6 shared 

	pom/osf/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/

directory in order to avoid duplication of the same file at two
locations within cvs.

>    Without it, ipt_osf can't be compile.
>    thanks.
 
btw: I wouldn't start using dyndns for email... just imagine what
happens if you get disconnected, somebody else gets the ip and now
somebody delivers email to that ip?  Yes, that email is either lost and
received at his node, or causes a bounce (which in turn might
automatically unsubscribe yourself from a mailinglist).

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Patrick McHardy]

Harald Welte wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:32:33AM +0200, Samir Bellabes wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Harald,
>>
>>   It's seems that the file
>>   p-o-m/osf/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_osf.h
>>   is missing.
>>    
>>
>
>Erm, it's not missing.  It is in the linux-2.4 and linux-2.6 shared 
>
>	pom/osf/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/
>
>directory in order to avoid duplication of the same file at two
>locations within cvs.
>  
>

Oops. I just commited the file to 2.6, I didn't knew this works.
How come it didn't compile ?

Regards
Patrick

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Samir Bellabes wrote:

> Hi Harald,
>
>    It's seems that the file
>    p-o-m/osf/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_osf.h
>    is missing.
>    Without it, ipt_osf can't be compile.
>    thanks.

Thank you, the file is added to cvs.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> Harald Welte wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:32:33AM +0200, Samir Bellabes wrote:
> >>
> >>   It's seems that the file
> >>   p-o-m/osf/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_osf.h
> >>   is missing.
> >
> >Erm, it's not missing.  It is in the linux-2.4 and linux-2.6 shared
> >
> >	pom/osf/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/
> >
> >directory in order to avoid duplication of the same file at two
> >locations within cvs.
>
> Oops. I just commited the file to 2.6, I didn't knew this works.
> How come it didn't compile ?

In the original design of pom-ng the files in the different version-trees
were not duplicated. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the versioning
than could not be preserved and in present pom-ng the kernel/userspace
trees must be complete. Therefore the missing header file resulted
the failing compilation. I added the header file fixed by Phil Oester to
the cvs tree.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > Oops. I just commited the file to 2.6, I didn't knew this works.
> > How come it didn't compile ?
> 
> In the original design of pom-ng the files in the different version-trees
> were not duplicated. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the versioning
> than could not be preserved 

Mh, do you still remember the precise reason for this? I would like to
have this resolved in a cleaner way than copying everything over and
over...

> Best regards,
> Jozsef

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Harald Welte wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > > Oops. I just commited the file to 2.6, I didn't knew this works.
> > > How come it didn't compile ?
> >
> > In the original design of pom-ng the files in the different version-trees
> > were not duplicated. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the versioning
> > than could not be preserved
>
> Mh, do you still remember the precise reason for this? I would like to
> have this resolved in a cleaner way than copying everything over and
> over...

As far as I remember the main problem was how to express when a file was
*not* required in specific versions or above a given version.

I agree that it's not elegant to store indentical files in the different
version trees, but actually it's not that bad at all. Surprisingly enough
quite often even the include files differ in the 2.4/2.6 trees. And from
management point of view, thus a single tree holds a complete
version-specific patchlet.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Henrik Nordstrom]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Harald Welte wrote:

> Mh, do you still remember the precise reason for this? I would like to
> have this resolved in a cleaner way than copying everything over and
> over...

I don't remember, and also do not see any reason why there can not be a 
shared directory or even hierarchy.

My suggestion

linux		version independent files
linux-2.4	linux-2.4 specific
linux-2.6	linux-2.6 specific
linux-2.6.8	linux-2.6.8 or later specific

where if you are on linux-2.6.9 the files are the sum of linux, linux-2.4 
and linux-2.6.8, where the same file in a more specific version overrides 
the less specific version.

This should not be very complex to accomplish, and is open to several 
different ways of maintaining the versions depending on the authors 
preference.

Regards
Henrik

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Henrik Nordstrom]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:

> As far as I remember the main problem was how to express when a file was
> *not* required in specific versions or above a given version.

I propose that in such case the file need to be forked into the respective 
version trees where it should be used.

Regards
Henrik

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Harald Welte wrote:
>
> > Mh, do you still remember the precise reason for this? I would like to
> > have this resolved in a cleaner way than copying everything over and
> > over...
>
> I don't remember, and also do not see any reason why there can not be a
> shared directory or even hierarchy.
>
> My suggestion
>
> linux		version independent files
> linux-2.4	linux-2.4 specific
> linux-2.6	linux-2.6 specific
> linux-2.6.8	linux-2.6.8 or later specific
>
> where if you are on linux-2.6.9 the files are the sum of linux, linux-2.4
> and linux-2.6.8, where the same file in a more specific version overrides
> the less specific version.
>
> This should not be very complex to accomplish, and is open to several
> different ways of maintaining the versions depending on the authors
> preference.

> > As far as I remember the main problem was how to express when a file
> > was *not* required in specific versions or above a given version.

> I propose that in such case the file need to be forked into the
> respective version trees where it should be used.

Using the directory scheme and logic above, how you could express that
foo.c is required up to 2.6.8 but not above?

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:43:43PM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> 
> >As far as I remember the main problem was how to express when a file was
> >*not* required in specific versions or above a given version.
> 
> I propose that in such case the file need to be forked into the respective 
> version trees where it should be used.

yes, this was my initial idea about this, too.

> Regards
> Henrik

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:10:28PM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > I propose that in such case the file need to be forked into the
> > respective version trees where it should be used.
> 
> Using the directory scheme and logic above, how you could express that
> foo.c is required up to 2.6.8 but not above?

oh, i see.  So a more recent version doesn't require a file to be
different or to be present, but requires an old one not to be present.

Now I understand, thanks Jozsef.

> Best regards,
> Jozsef

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Henrik Nordstrom]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:

> Using the directory scheme and logic above, how you could express that
> foo.c is required up to 2.6.8 but not above?

Place it in linux-2.6.1 (or from whatever version is required), and create 
a linux-2.6.9 directory not having this file.

If there is other releases between 2.6.1 and 2.6.9 for the file into each 
release.

Regards
Henrik

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
>
> > Using the directory scheme and logic above, how you could express that
> > foo.c is required up to 2.6.8 but not above?
>
> Place it in linux-2.6.1 (or from whatever version is required), and create
> a linux-2.6.9 directory not having this file.
>
> If there is other releases between 2.6.1 and 2.6.9 for the file into each
> release.

The assumption is that the file is required for all releases up to 2.6.8.

We can't put the file into linux/, because then it'd be added to 2.6.9.
We can't put the file into linux-2.4/ and linux-2.6/ either, from the same
reason.

If we put the file into each linux-x.y.z directory up to 2.6.8, we are
copying the same file between directories in spite of the efforts of
avoiding that.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Henrik Nordstrom]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:

> If we put the file into each linux-x.y.z directory up to 2.6.8, we are
> copying the same file between directories in spite of the efforts of
> avoiding that.

If there is that many Linux version dependencies of the extension yes, but 
I doubt this will be the case very often.

Regards
Henrik

Re: Missing ipt_osf.h in p-o-m (kernel 2.6)

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
>
> > If we put the file into each linux-x.y.z directory up to 2.6.8, we are
> > copying the same file between directories in spite of the efforts of
> > avoiding that.
>
> If there is that many Linux version dependencies of the extension yes, but
> I doubt this will be the case very often.

Yes, and we smooth out the versions by bringing them up to the
most recent 2.4/2.6 version by the special update/ patches.

Patches are always welcomed :-). But it'd be interesting to see how many
files are actually affected.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary