From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 8 13:44:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3602AE5E for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:44:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.69.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F1711A1 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r68Di0Eq088443; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:44:00 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r68Di0WN088442; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:44:00 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:44:00 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Cy Schubert Subject: Re: Ipfilter pre-Vendor Import Issue Message-ID: <20130708134400.GH67810@glebius.int.ru> References: <20130705084649.GC67810@FreeBSD.org> <201307051838.r65IcL2Q005119@slippy.cwsent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201307051838.r65IcL2Q005119@slippy.cwsent.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:44:02 -0000 Cy, On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:38:21AM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: C> > What I'd prefer to see is the following: C> > C> > - commit new ipfilter untouched to vendor-sys/ipfilter C> > - nuke sys/contrib/ipfilter C> > - svn copy vendor-sys/ipfilter to sys/netpfil/ipfilter C> C> Having ipfilter in one place instead of two (vendor and vendor-sys) makes a C> lot more sense. C> C> I suppose we could put ipfilter's kernel components in sys/netpfil but what C> about the userland sources? Also see my reply below regarding keeping it in C> contrib. IMO, it is possible to keep a bulk checkout of ipfilter in vendor/ipfilter, but merge kernel files separately to sys/netpfil/ipfilter, and separately merge userland files to appropriate place. C> > In future imports do: C> > C> > - commit newer ipfilter to vendor-sys/ipfilter C> > - svn merge vendor-sys/ipfilter to sys/netpfil/ipfilter C> > C> > What's the reason to keep code in contrib? C> C> The reason to keep ipftilter in contrib is to maintain consistency with C> other contributed software such as bind, nvi, sendmail, pf, and a host of C> other notable software we don't maintain ourselves. Maintaining consistency C> with other contributed software should probably be maintained. I'm open to C> moving all packet filters, e.g. ipfw, pf, and ipfilter into sys/netpfil as C> long as consistency is maintained across the board. C> C> Do you think we should put the userland sources also in the same location C> or should we maintain a similar separation we do today? I'm open to both C> however I'd prefer keeping all vendor software (kernel and userland) in one C> location. The BSD license allows us to put the code into FreeBSD w/o any separation. So the question is: what is more handy to us? What do we actually gain having contrib/ipf, assuming we got vendor branch already? What we lose is: - more complex Makefiles - more complex hacking: edit files in one place, run make in other -- Totus tuus, Glebius.