Re: Bug#502305: ITP: ulogd2 -- The Netfilter Userspace Logging Daemon, version 2
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 04:31:26PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Pierre Chifflier wrote:
> > Ulogd is already packaged in Debian, but I think ulogd2 should be proposed as
> > a separate package, because:
> > - they are completely different projects, supporting different targets (NFLOG)
> > or features (connection tracking)
> > - ulogd is still the stable daemon, for some time I think
> > - some applications are based on version 1, and a transition to v2 require
> > many changes
> > - both can be installed at the same time
> > - packages for ulogd2 will be completely different, for ex. using dbconfig
> I'm sorry, I disagree. I think that ulogd should be updated to v2
> post-lenny, since v1 is unsupported, hasn't released for some time and
> has some serious limitations and bugs (e.g. doesn't work on 32-bit
> userland/64-bit kernel systems, including sparc64 which is the only way
> sparc systems will be supported in Debian in the future).
Yes, v2 resolves these problems .. However, given the differences
between v1 and v2 (have you looked at the config ?) are so important
that upgrading cleanly is almost impossible, and is not planned anyway
(I'm part of ulogd2 upstream, BTW).
> Even if we go the separate package name way for some time, this should
> be a decision that the existing ulogd maintainers (which includes
> myself) should make and not someone else.
> You are, of course, welcome to help and/or comaintain.
I was under the impression that ulogd wasn't maintained, so I thought a
complete rewrite would be best - I should have asked before.
Since I would like to work on the packaging, would it be ok for a
co-maintainance ? (I'll send patches for review before uploading, if you
> I've known about ulogd2 for some time but haven't worked on it because
> of its instabilities that make it unsuitable for release. An upload to
> experimental might make sense but I haven't worked on this (and neither
> Achilleas, AFAIK) because of my lack of time.
> If you intend to work on this, please try to coordinate with us.
I'd like to work on this. Is it ok for you ?
(maybe we should discuss this directly, and trim the CC line)