* libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org
@ 2011-12-29 18:47 Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-12-29 21:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2011-12-29 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Netfilter Development Mailing list
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.
The initial 1.0.0 release is scheduled by when Linux kernel 3.3 will
be released (I insist, this is not wrong, Linux kernel 3.3, not 3.2).
I'll find some spare time to set up the libnetfilter_acct space in
www.netfilter.org soon.
Have fun with it!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org
2011-12-29 18:47 libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org Pablo Neira Ayuso
@ 2011-12-29 21:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-12-30 0:05 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-12-29 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list
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.
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org
2011-12-29 21:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2011-12-30 0:05 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-12-30 1:09 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2011-12-30 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org
2011-12-30 0:05 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
@ 2011-12-30 1:09 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-12-30 11:26 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-12-30 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list
On Friday 2011-12-30 01:05, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>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.
Well, do you expect nfacct to grow to proportions similar to ipset or
conntrack-tools?
As for nfnl_osf, it certainly has not reached that threshold (and
is unlikely to do so in the near future), and therefore I move to keep it.
>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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org
2011-12-30 1:09 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2011-12-30 11:26 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2011-12-30 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 02:09:11AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Well, do you expect nfacct to grow to proportions similar to ipset or
> conntrack-tools?
No way ;-)
> As for nfnl_osf, it certainly has not reached that threshold (and
> is unlikely to do so in the near future), and therefore I move to keep it.
OK, let's keep it in the iptables tree then.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-12-30 11:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-12-29 18:47 libnetfilter_acct now available at git.netfilter.org Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-12-29 21:23 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-12-30 0:05 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-12-30 1:09 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-12-30 11:26 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).