Re: [PATCH] tools: add a systemd unit for static rulesets

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

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 02:29:46PM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> 
> On 3/5/25 22:35, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> > 
> > I added a few more people to Cc.
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 09:59:35PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > There is a customer request (bugreport) for wanting to trivially load a ruleset
> > > from a well-known location on boot, forwarded to me by M. Gerstner. A systemd
> > > service unit is hereby added to provide that functionality. This is based on
> > > various distributions attempting to do same, cf.
> > > 
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nftables/tree/rawhide
> > > https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/blob/master/main/nftables/
> > > nftables.initd
> > > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/nftables
> > Any chance to Cc these maintainers too? Given this is closer to
> > downstream than upstream, I would like to understand if this could
> > cause any hypothetical interference with distro packagers.
> > 
> > Only subtle nitpick I see with this patch is that INSTALL file is not
> > updated to provide information on how to use --with-unitdir=.
> > 
> 
> I have mixed feelings about having this systemd service file in this repository.
> Will this file be maintained wrt. systemd ecosystem updates? Or will it be
> outdated and neglected after a few years?

From your words, I guess you don't find this useful for the Debian
case?

I understand your concerns of having a file in the tree that gets no
attention, for me, it is one less file to maintain TBH.

But maybe common ground on this helps reinvent the wheel if there is
consensus on this.

Having said this, I am a not so close downstream packager
requirements.