Re: nfq_set_verdict_mark

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>I'm beginning to wonder how much more kludges we will have in these
>>libraries by continuing to treat them as stable without having had
>>even a single beta version.
> 
> 
> OK, I start thinking that I'm getting obsessed with breaking current
> deployed apps :(. I also think that we can solve this minor annoying
> issues by fixing the problem and then releasing a new version asap.

I checked google code-search and the two users I could find already
do the conversion manually, so they will break. Thats definitely not
good, but I wonder if we should trust that this will be the last
of these bugs or if we should clearly mark this as beta/unstable API
and appologize for not beeing clear from the beginning. Its just
not a good idea to release a library with an interface that is more
or less cast in stone without any real testing.

> The current release process is too slow, I have the impression that
> nobody is using the lastest official releases. For conntrackd, I'm
> currently doing unnofficial releases of libnetfilter_conntrack because
> the official release is broken with NAT handlings, well apart from the
> fact that I also introduce some patches with new features that I need.

You're probably right (about people not using official releases) and
definitely right about releasing too seldom.

> Just tell you that I don't mind about spending some time on
> administration tasks like releases and any other stuff related with the
> website if that can help to speed up the release process. I worked on
> some scripts to automate the release process time ago after the workshop
> that I can recover.

That would be great. Let me know if you need anything (I think I recall
your keys expired?).