Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:21:36 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ipfilter pre-Vendor Import Issue Message-ID: <20130709092136.GL67810@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <201307082000.r68K02Ef063517@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <glebius@FreeBSD.org> <20130708134400.GH67810@glebius.int.ru> <201307082000.r68K02Ef063517@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:00:02PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: C> > The BSD license allows us to put the code into FreeBSD w/o any separation. C> > C> > So the question is: what is more handy to us? C> > C> > What do we actually gain having contrib/ipf, assuming we got vendor branch C> > already? C> > C> > What we lose is: C> > - more complex Makefiles C> > - more complex hacking: edit files in one place, run make in other C> C> How is this for a plan? C> C> Instead of importing the kernel bits into vendor-sys/ipfilter and the C> userland bits into vendor/ipfilter, the base tarball should be imported C> into vendor-sys/ipfilter (or vendor/ipfilter, doesn't matter which). We C> keep the complete tarball imported into one place in the tree. I'd prefer vendor/ipfilter as single place of vendor imports. C> Merge ipfilter into sys/netpfil/ipfilter (for kernel bits) and C> netpfil/ipfilter (for userland bits). C> C> We should probably think of moving pf and ipfw into the new subdirectory as C> well, but that's for a future discussion. No, userland tools should be placed in bin|sbin|usr.bin|usr.sbin, according to the place where they are installed. An exlusion can be made adding a intermediate subdir (like this is already done for ipfilter tools), to group all related tools together. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130709092136.GL67810>