iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Jan Engelhardt]

I have uploaded an (unofficial) tarball of the current (official) HEAD 
from the SCM up to 
http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/iptables-1.4.0.77.tar.bz2 (+ .asc). 
The version number is derived from git-describe telling me it has been 
77 commits since the last tag (Dec 22 2007), and it should not interfere 
with any official release numbering plans. It seemed time to release 
something in tarball form, the 5-6 month turnaround period for 
official iptables tarballs is too long IMHO, at least when patches have 
gone in.


Second, the Xtables-addons compile error with 2.6.18-stable has been 
addressed, which should make a few Debian/Etch get better success. No 
other changes interesting for end-users were made. URL is 
http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/ where everything can be found 
(including the -combined package that many prefer for the time being).

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> I have uploaded an (unofficial) tarball of the current (official) HEAD 
> from the SCM up to 
> http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/iptables-1.4.0.77.tar.bz2 (+ .asc). 
> The version number is derived from git-describe telling me it has been 
> 77 commits since the last tag (Dec 22 2007), and it should not interfere 
> with any official release numbering plans.

People have SVN snapshots from the Netfilter FTP? Why do we need this 
sort of unnofficial release?

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

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Monday 2008-04-28 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:

> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> I have uploaded an (unofficial) tarball of the current (official) HEAD from
>> the SCM up to http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/iptables-1.4.0.77.tar.bz2
>> (+ .asc). The version number is derived from git-describe telling me it has
>> been 77 commits since the last tag (Dec 22 2007), and it should not interfere
>> with any official release numbering plans.
>
> People have SVN snapshots from the Netfilter FTP?
> Why do we need this sort of unnofficial release?

I did not know (or rather, forgotten) that automatic tarballs were
created. People do not seem to use these (but perhaps `svn co`),
otherwise they would have probably noticed before me now that they
are currently generated incorrectly.

I predict that the _majority_ of users do not run any snapshot. And
they probably would not run a snapshot because they are not
interested, or because their distro does not package it — and there
is nothing wrong with that.

By giving a specific snapshot the explicit "tarball blessing" which
implies it was tested more than the usual autogenerated snapshot, it
will — hopefully — give reason to actually use it on a regular basis.

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2008-04-28 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>
>   
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>     
>>> I have uploaded an (unofficial) tarball of the current (official) HEAD from
>>> the SCM up to http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/iptables-1.4.0.77.tar.bz2
>>> (+ .asc). The version number is derived from git-describe telling me it has
>>> been 77 commits since the last tag (Dec 22 2007), and it should not interfere
>>> with any official release numbering plans.
>>>       
>> People have SVN snapshots from the Netfilter FTP?
>> Why do we need this sort of unnofficial release?
>>     
>
> I did not know (or rather, forgotten) that automatic tarballs were
> created. People do not seem to use these (but perhaps `svn co`),
> otherwise they would have probably noticed before me now that they
> are currently generated incorrectly.
>
> I predict that the _majority_ of users do not run any snapshot. And
> they probably would not run a snapshot because they are not
> interested, or because their distro does not package it — and there
> is nothing wrong with that.
>
> By giving a specific snapshot the explicit "tarball blessing" which
> implies it was tested more than the usual autogenerated snapshot, it
> will — hopefully — give reason to actually use it on a regular basis.
>   

I would prefer if you would avoid creating confusion by creating
unofficial tarballs with official sounding names and versioning.

Its time for a -rc though, I agree.

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2008-04-30 14:11, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> I would prefer if you would avoid creating confusion by creating
> unofficial tarballs with official sounding names and versioning.

I would not call it confusing, since the number, obviously, reflects the 
snapshot state. But ok, your politics.
Then please tell me a way to do releases on my behalf without you 
having a problem with either the xtables series or questioning
the usefulness of snapshot tarballs.

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Antonio Augusto (Mancha) wrote:
> how about iptables-svn-date ? :)

We already have daily snapshots that you can get (although they were 
broken, I have fixed them yesterday):

ftp://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/iptables/snapshot/iptables-20080430.tar.bz2

> I agree with Patrick, the first time i saw this thread it looked like an 
> official release to me.

Same feeling.

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

Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2008-04-30 16:23, Antonio Augusto (Mancha) wrote:

>how about iptables-svn-date ? :)

Since I don't use svn but git, I take it iptables-git-rev is appropriate
as an alternative to svn-date. Since git-describe returns v1.4.0-77-gxxxxx,
that makes about iptables-1.4.0-77; replacing the dash by a dot for
convenience because - and _ is used by rpm and consorts.

>I agree with Patrick, the first time i saw this thread it looked like an
>official release to me.

"Look beyond what you see"[1] - it does contain official files, though.




[1] http://youtube.com/watch?v=B5XkdmLN2WE   scnr :)