From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: POM Xtables??? Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:52:23 +0200 Message-ID: <48694787.3080906@trash.net> References: <935fab200806271054oa7c340evbf465b7a9984498b@mail.gmail.com> <4866F152.7030109@riverviewtech.net> <935fab200806300904rc7dc7b2kf58ab7893c3ef20a@mail.gmail.com> <486907EA.60105@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Dave , netfilter@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Monday 2008-06-30 18:20, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>> 3) Still don't know where Xtables-addons fits in with Netfilter? Why >>> is Xtables not on the Netfilter site or even mentioned there at all? >>> What does the core Netfilter team think of Xtables-addons? >>> >> I have no opinion about this except that already mentioned by >> Jan: useful patches in proper state should be upstream, all >> others I don't care about. >> > > Well at least I want to give it some care. POM, and Xtables-addons > exist because modules were rejected upstream. > ... > - the rest: dunno? > Which rest? Is the list at the end of your mail complete? >>> 6) Currently the extensions and patching systems seems to be a >>> hodge-podge of items, all with different web sites, maintainers and >>> writers, from a newbie perspective it's confusing, would be nice if it >>> was wrapped up into something more straitforward. Hopefully this is >>> what Xtables-addons is doing, BUT would be really nice if this all >>> started officially at Netfilter.org. >>> >> Short answer - don't do it, the module provided by the kernel >> should be enough for 99.99% of all cases. If it isn't, convince >> us to merge the patch, which usually isn't very hard. >> >> History has repeatedly shown that out of tree patches are buggy >> and cause more problems than they solve, which is why there >> is no interest from the netfilter team in maintaining external >> patches. >> > > Hence I have taken up some and fixed them to be straight. > Patrick, what's your judgment on the existing > xt_{LOGMARK,TARPIT,TEE,condition,geoip,ipp2p} modules in xtables-addons? > - LOGMARK - haven't seen it or can't remember - TARPIT - fine if remaining issues are fixed - TEE - same as TARPIT - condition - undecided - geoip - seems like a toy. Whats the use case? - ipp2p - last version I've seen was a *horrible* mess, unless I'm confusing it with the other l7 classifier module out there.