Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 14:43:48 -0700 From: "Chris H" <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: "Jan Bramkamp" <crest@rlwinm.de> Cc: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: WireGuard for FreeBSD Message-ID: <de344608e02e818fb1c88c7a08ab2cfa@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <adc9ac0b-f7d9-056e-25d3-a1c749d61602@rlwinm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:05:40 +0200 "Jan Bramkamp" <crest@rlwinm=2Ede> said > On 25=2E05=2E18 09:29, Bernhard Fr=C3=B6hlich wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Chris H <portmaster@bsdforge=2Ecom> wro= te: > >> On Thu, 24 May 2018 22:16:42 +0200 "Bernhard Froehlich" <decke@bluelif= e=2Eat> > >> said > >> > >>> Am 24=2E05=2E2018 21:06 schrieb Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge=2Ecom>: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:39:22 +0200 "Jason A=2E Donenfeld" > >>>> <Jason@zx2c4=2Ecom> > >>>> said > > >>>>> Hi Chris, > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Chris H > >>>>> <portmaster@bsdforge=2Ecom> wrote: > > > I should have no trouble > > introducing > >>>>> Wireguard to the ports system today=2E > >>>>>>>> I'm not a native fluent speaker of FreeBSDese, but my > >>>>>>>> understanding is: > > a) Bernhard committed the two new packages= to > > ports > >>>>>>>> today=2E > > b) If you update ports with portsnap, you can build t= hem > > locally=2E > >>>>>>>>>> c) If you run `pkg install wireguard`, it fails because the bu= ild > > > > > >>>>>>>> servers haven't gotten to them and won't for several days=2E > > >= > > > Does your > >>>>>>>> statement about "introducing WireGuard to the ports system" > > = mean > > that > >>>>>>>> you intend to rectify (c) immediately, so we don't have to > > w= ait > > several > >>>>>>>> days for the build snapshot scripts to tick in cron? Or > > is i= t > > mostly > >>>>>>>> just related to not realizing (a)? > Sigh=2E=2E=2E > It was my underst= anding > > that > >>>>>>>> when I stepped up to adopt WireGuard, > and your ack to that=2E Th= at *I* > > would > >>>>>>>> be adding the port=2E I wasn't able > to produce the port that sam= e, or > > next > >>>>>>>> day, as I am already Maintainer > for nearly 150 ports=2E I have n= o > > trouble > >>>>>>>> with that list, except that > clang/llvm v5, and shortly after v= 6 > > became the > >>>>>>>> default versions in $BASE=2E > Which introduced a few pr(1)'s I ne= eded > > to deal > >>>>>>>> with=2E > Now all the time I have spent researching, and staging t= o > > build the > >>>>>>>> port > have been laid to waste=2E Apparently you rescinded, and ga= ve it > > to > >>>>>>>> Bernhard=2E > This project doesn't feel like a good match to me=2E >= No > > hard > >>>>>>>> feelings, Bernhard=2E Have fun with the port=2E > >>> Hi Chris, > >>> > >>> I'm sorry that I was confusing people which was really not my intenti= on=2E I > >>> have also seen your ACK to create the ports and replied to you in pri= vate > >>> to > >>> offer my help=2E Then I joined in IRC and just wanted to get an idea ho= w far > >>> the FreeBSD support was=2E I ended up creating two very rough ports whi= ch > >>> did > >>> build but not pass poudriere and called it a day=2E I also did send you= and > >>> the > >>> list a mail to avoid duplicate work - and hoped you take it as a base= =2E > >>> > >>> But I did not get any reply on the next day so I kept going and finis= hed > >>> the > >>> ports yesterday with some good help from upstream=2E > >>> > >>> Sorry for how that developed but I hoped you get in contact with eith= er me > >>> or > >>> upstream which neither happened=2E We usually do not have the problem t= hat > >>> too > >>> many people want to help out so I did not expect that this will be a > >>> problem > >>> for anyone=2E > >> > >> Ahem=2E OK thank you for the kind words, and intentions, Bernhard=2E Like = I > >> said; > >> no hard feelings=2E If you've already gotten that far=2E You might as well > >> finish=2E > >> FWIW while you *did* indeed shoot me, and the list a couple of notes=2E = I was > >> never under the impression you were going to take it so far=2E Which > >> *ultimately* > >> left everyone concerned believing *you* were going to maintain it=2E > >> I only mention it, in hopes all of us might use the --verbose switch i= n the > >> future, in hopes of avoiding this sort of nonsense=2E :-) :-) > >> > >> Thanks again, Bernhard! > >> > >> --Chris > >> > >> P=2ES=2E just in case it wasn't clear; feel free to finish, and submit you= r > >> work=2E > >> P=2EP=2ES=2E Just so you (and everyone else) knows; I'm already working on t= he > >> kernel module=2E Please keep in touch, should you also be interested, an= d > > have > >> any work of your own=2E > >=20 > > Hi chris, > >=20 > > to be crystal clear about that=2E My motivation is not to be maintainer > > of any specific > > port or anything like that but only to have technology available on > > FreeBSD that I > > personally need and/or want=2E > >=20 > > Usually for more complex ports this did lead to team efforts on our por= ting > > work > > which was also what I did expect to happen for wireguard=2E Well it > > turned out to be > > easier than thought and upstream was also very helpful so in the end > > that was more > > like a one day of work effort to get the basic ports=2E > >=20 > > Nevertheless I would still be very happy to increase the bus factor > > and team up with > > multiple people to maintain wireguard=2E I think there will be more work > > to be done in the > > near future for wireguard on FreeBSD where a team effort would speed > > up things for > > sure: > >=20 > > - we need to support FreeNAS and pfsense to get it into their package > > systems > > - documentation is still needed because it differs a bit from upstream > > documentation (Handbook page?) > > - wireguard kernel module (can that work already be seen somewhere? > > upstream will be interested for sure) > > - rc script(s) > > - the regular maintenance for the port >=20 > The wireguard userspace tooling isn't that simple to use reliably=2E You=20 > have to spawn the wireguard-go process before the config can be loaded=20 > and it can die in the meantime and to you want to terminate it and=20 > destroy the tun interface if the config contains errors=2E Doing this=20 > without ugly hacks isn't possible given the interfaces offered by=20 > wireguard-go=2E It would be really nice to be able to terminate=20 > wireguard-go over the unix domain socket instead of a pkill=2E Agreed=2E This bugged me too=2E Plumbing all this through a UNIX socket should be mandatory IMHO=2E --Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd=2Eorg mailing list > https://lists=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd=2Eorg"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?de344608e02e818fb1c88c7a08ab2cfa>