[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: ipset

Hi Neutron,

> Is "ipset6" means ipset for IPv6 ? or ipset (6.x) ?
> I'm interested in the IPv6 with ipset but not tested yet. The IPv6 is
> not widely used in Thailand yet.

I meant ipset v6.* as this is the only one which works with up-to-date 
kernels. (I didn't try it with IPv6)

> > I reckon you're aware that your package conflicts with
> > xtables-addons-common?
> At this time, my ipset binary still conflicts as the
> xtables-addons-common also provides the binary in the same path.

My concern is that overlapping is a big source of problems.
Imagine one have ipset installed - he/she won't be able to use modules 
provided by xtables-addons without uninstalling ipset first, etc.

> IMO, if the next release (1.41) of xtables-addons will not build
> ipset, so, ipset package should set the Conflicts to only for
> xtables-addons-common (<= 1.40) then no conflicts any more.

This may work if we agree not to build ipset in the next xtables-addons 
release and sponsor your package at the same time.
Please bring Pierre (the main xtables-addons maintainer) to the discussion and 
CC to me as well.

> Or setup the alternatives which users could select by him/her self.

I don't like this idea because it is not an alternative but the very same 
thing provided by two different packages. This should not be. :)

> Or ipset source package should build only libipset{2,-dev} and leave
> the ipset utility in xtables-addons as before.
> But I respect your and xtables-addons maintainer team's decision.
> Any suggestions ?

I hope you'll excuse me if I stay away from suggestions for some time.
This discussion needs expertise of someone more experienced than me - a 
someone familiar with resolution of conflicts between packages.
We need comments from DDs.

Personally I think this decision requires me to thoroughly review your package 
and prepare new xtables-addons. I'm overwhelmed with work for next several 
weeks so I hardly will be able to do so soon.

Besides, I think you need to demonstrate the benefits of having separate 
package for ipset. I'm not sure how/why this is better (if it is) or if it's 
worth troubles to do for the marginal benefit, if any. 

Have you considered joining the xtables-addons packaging team?

It appears to me that introducing your package would imply work for many 
people and careful coordination just for the sake of providing the same thing 
we already have in a slightly different manner.

Having said that, I'm not against the idea. Maybe it will be better - I just 
don't understand the benefits given the overhead for the transition period.

What makes you think it worth the effort?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: