patch-o-matic problems..?

patch-o-matic problems..?

[Zoe Parsons]

Hi, I'm probably just missing something obvious but still....

I've had the first cause to use something out of POM in a few years (ipp2p 
not that it really matters), and when I run it I just get the message:
/usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1 doesn't look like a iptables source code 
directory 
to me.

I've tried it with the debian package source, a downloaded tarball from 
the  netfilter site, and finally with the git tree (using both downloaded 
and git retrieved copies of POM as well).

Oh and it's been invoked as: ./runme --download --kernel-path 
/usr/src/linux-source-2.6.25 --iptables-path /usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1

Any suggestions?

TIA
-- 
ZoeP

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Saturday 2008-07-19 23:45, Zoe Parsons wrote:

> Hi, I'm probably just missing something obvious but still....
>
> I've had the first cause to use something out of POM in a few years (ipp2p not
> that it really matters), and when I run it I just get the message:
> /usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1 doesn't look like a iptables source code directory to
> me.
>
> I've tried it with the debian package source, a downloaded tarball from the
> netfilter site, and finally with the git tree (using both downloaded and git
> retrieved copies of POM as well).
>
> Oh and it's been invoked as: ./runme --download --kernel-path
> /usr/src/linux-source-2.6.25 --iptables-path /usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1
>
> Any suggestions?


Mail archives -
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43859.html
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43925.html

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Zoe Parsons]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> Mail archives -
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43859.html
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43925.html
Ah excellent, this seemed to work. I don't quite understand why things 
aren't linked from the main site, or why current patch-o-matic can't at 
least work with current iptables but still..

-- 
ZoeP

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Sunday 2008-07-20 16:48, Zoe Parsons wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> Mail archives -
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43859.html
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg43925.html
>
> Ah excellent, this seemed to work. I don't quite understand why things aren't
> linked from the main site,

> or why current patch-o-matic can't at least work with current iptables

What do you need from patch-o-matic that is not yet in 
Xtables-addons?

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Dave]

I have to agree with these guys, the whole POM and Xtables things is
extremely confusing to the newbies.

Is there any way to clean this up on the Netfilter site so all the
other newbies don't have to deal with the same issues over and over?

My idea as how it should be presented >>

1) Remote POM from Netfilter.org
2) Add Xtables-Addons to Netfilter.org
3) Add documentation on reasons why moving to Xtables and how it works
to Netfilter.org

-Dave

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2008-07-23 02:36, Dave wrote:

>I have to agree with these guys, the whole POM and Xtables things is
>extremely confusing to the newbies.
>
>Is there any way to clean this up on the Netfilter site so all the
>other newbies don't have to deal with the same issues over and over?
>
>My idea as how it should be presented >>
>
>1) Remote POM from Netfilter.org
>2) Add Xtables-Addons to Netfilter.org
>3) Add documentation on reasons why moving to Xtables and how it works
>to Netfilter.org

4) Tell distributions to package it so users don't have to worry about (3)

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Zoe Parsons wrote:
> Hi, I'm probably just missing something obvious but still....
> 
> I've had the first cause to use something out of POM in a few years
> (ipp2p not that it really matters), and when I run it I just get the
> message:
> /usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1 doesn't look like a iptables source code
> directory to me.
> 
> I've tried it with the debian package source, a downloaded tarball from
> the  netfilter site, and finally with the git tree (using both
> downloaded and git retrieved copies of POM as well).
> 
> Oh and it's been invoked as: ./runme --download --kernel-path
> /usr/src/linux-source-2.6.25 --iptables-path /usr/src/iptables-1.4.1.1

You forgot to run ./configure in your iptables sources before running
pom-ng?

-- 
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Dave wrote:
> I have to agree with these guys, the whole POM and Xtables things is
> extremely confusing to the newbies.

Indeed. IMO they should not exist anymore.

With regards to POM(-ng) - I cannot talk about the other project since
it is not supported by the Netfilter Project itself - it was something
that we needed during the 2.4 days, since we could not add new features
to the kernel that quickly. However, with the new 2.6 development cycle,
features can get into kernel faster. So if you need some feature or some
contibution into mainline, go and ask for it. Of course, it must suit
the standards and it must be an interesting contribution to what we
already have. On the other hand, you may also get the reason why it is
not in mainline yet.

Well, Anyway I think that we've already discussed about this in a long
thread [1].

[1] http://marc.info/?l=netfilter&m=121484288209802&w=2

-- 
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Amos Jeffries]

Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> I have to agree with these guys, the whole POM and Xtables things is
>> extremely confusing to the newbies.
> 
> Indeed. IMO they should not exist anymore.
> 
> With regards to POM(-ng) - I cannot talk about the other project since
> it is not supported by the Netfilter Project itself - it was something
> that we needed during the 2.4 days, since we could not add new features
> to the kernel that quickly. However, with the new 2.6 development cycle,
> features can get into kernel faster. So if you need some feature or some
> contibution into mainline, go and ask for it. Of course, it must suit
> the standards and it must be an interesting contribution to what we
> already have. On the other hand, you may also get the reason why it is
> not in mainline yet.
> 
> Well, Anyway I think that we've already discussed about this in a long
> thread [1].
> 
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=netfilter&m=121484288209802&w=2
> 

Could the netfilter team at least publish something along the lines of:
  POM(-ng) is now being deprecated. There is another independent project 
run by X over at U which performs a replacement service ...


AYJ

Re: patch-o-matic problems..?

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> I have to agree with these guys, the whole POM and Xtables things is
>>> extremely confusing to the newbies.
>>
>> Indeed. IMO they should not exist anymore.
>>
>> With regards to POM(-ng) - I cannot talk about the other project since
>> it is not supported by the Netfilter Project itself - it was something
>> that we needed during the 2.4 days, since we could not add new features
>> to the kernel that quickly. However, with the new 2.6 development cycle,
>> features can get into kernel faster. So if you need some feature or some
>> contibution into mainline, go and ask for it. Of course, it must suit
>> the standards and it must be an interesting contribution to what we
>> already have. On the other hand, you may also get the reason why it is
>> not in mainline yet.
>>
>> Well, Anyway I think that we've already discussed about this in a long
>> thread [1].
>>
>> [1] http://marc.info/?l=netfilter&m=121484288209802&w=2
>>
> 
> Could the netfilter team at least publish something along the lines of:
>  POM(-ng) is now being deprecated. There is another independent project
> run by X over at U which performs a replacement service ...

I just told my opinion, we have to discuss this in the team, we'll do
such announcement if we agree with it. Anyhow, you seem to have
completely missed the main point of my previous email which is why do we
need pom-ng or any other of replacement at all?

-- 
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers

xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Andrew Schulman]

> >3) Add documentation on reasons why moving to Xtables and how it works
> >to Netfilter.org
> 
> 4) Tell distributions to package it so users don't have to worry about (3)

Jan, I'm working on creating Debian packages of xtables-addons.  I'm not a
Debian developer, but I can still post the packages.

But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of the source
files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the source files I find
with no license:

extensions/libxt_condition.c
extensions/libxt_ECHO.c
extensions/libxt_ipp2p.c
extensions/libxt_LOGMARK.c
extensions/libxt_TARPIT.c
extensions/libxt_TEE.c

The remaining source files are all GPL.

Can the above files be released under GPL too?  Most of them don't have
copyright statements in them.  Do you/we know who their authors are?

I know very little about licenses.  What about all of the other files in the
archive?  Do they need to be licensed too, and would a general COPYING file such
as one usually sees cover them all?

Thanks,
Andrew.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2008-07-25 06:01, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
>But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of 
>the source files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the 
>source files I find with no license:
>
>extensions/libxt_condition.c
(Stephane and Massimiliano)

>extensions/libxt_ECHO.c
(me)

>extensions/libxt_ipp2p.c
(ipp2p project group, code audited by me)

>extensions/libxt_LOGMARK.c
(me)

>extensions/libxt_TARPIT.c
(trivial)

>extensions/libxt_TEE.c
(Sebastian and audited by me)

>The remaining source files are all GPL.
>
>Can the above files be released under GPL too?  Most of them don't have
>copyright statements in them.  Do you/we know who their authors are?

The iptables extensions are mostly trivial and I would not consider them 
meaningfully copyrightable (especially libxt_TARPIT.c). I relaxedly put 
in GPL because anything else does not make sense. (e.g. there is no BSD 
implementation of the iptables command line interface which could 
possibly use these modules)

If any of the Cc'ed co-authors disagree with picking GPL2+, now is your 
time to speak up.

>I know very little about licenses.  What about all of the other files 
>in the archive?  Do they need to be licensed too, and would a general 
>COPYING file such as one usually sees cover them all?

I'll fix that.

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Sebastian Claßen]

Am Sonntag, den 27.07.2008, 16:35 -0400 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> On Friday 2008-07-25 06:01, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> >
> >But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of 
> >the source files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the 
> >source files I find with no license:
> >
> >extensions/libxt_condition.c
> (Stephane and Massimiliano)
> 
> >extensions/libxt_ECHO.c
> (me)
> 
> >extensions/libxt_ipp2p.c
> (ipp2p project group, code audited by me)
> 
> >extensions/libxt_LOGMARK.c
> (me)
> 
> >extensions/libxt_TARPIT.c
> (trivial)
> 
> >extensions/libxt_TEE.c
> (Sebastian and audited by me)

For me GPL is fine ;)

> >The remaining source files are all GPL.
> >

Greets
  Sebastian.

-- 
Sebastian Claßen
Postmaster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telefon: + 49 (0) 211 53087 522
Telefax: + 49 (0) 211 5381573
E-Mail:  sebastian.classen@freenet.ag
Website: www.freenet.de; www.mobilcom.de; www.freenet.ag
----------------------------------------------------------------------
freenet.de GmbH
Ein Unternehmen der freenet AG
Willstätterstr. 13
40549 Düsseldorf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geschäftsführung: Eckhard Spoerr, Axel Krieger, Eric Berger
Sitz der Gesellschaft ist Hamburg HRB 105353, Amtsgericht Hamburg

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Andrew Schulman]

> The iptables extensions are mostly trivial and I would not consider them 
> meaningfully copyrightable (especially libxt_TARPIT.c).

Maybe they aren't; I don't know enough to say.  Debian requires an overall
copyright file, that describes copyright and license terms for the whole source
archive.  I expect that it can make a general copyright and license statement,
and refer to individual source files for details where present.

The license can simply refer to the GPL; no need to reproduce it.

Thanks,
Andrew.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Massimiliano Hofer]

On Sunday 27 July 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of
> >the source files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the
> >source files I find with no license:
> >
> >extensions/libxt_condition.c
>
> (Stephane and Massimiliano)

No problem for me. I agree on the GPLv2 for my code.

I just supposed it was implicit, since my code is tied to a GPLv2 project.

-- 
Bye,
   Massimiliano Hofer
        Nucleus

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2008-07-30 09:25, Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
>On Sunday 27 July 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> >But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of
>> >the source files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the
>> >source files I find with no license:
>> >
>> >extensions/libxt_condition.c
>>
>> (Stephane and Massimiliano)
>
>No problem for me. I agree on the GPLv2 for my code.
>
>I just supposed it was implicit, since my code is tied to a GPLv2 project.

It is not explicit at all, since "GPL", as it stands, may also
mean "whatever existed at the time the project was conceived, or
any later [gpl] version", IOW, v2+. Is that ok?

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Massimiliano Hofer]

On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >No problem for me. I agree on the GPLv2 for my code.
> >
> >I just supposed it was implicit, since my code is tied to a GPLv2 project.
>
> It is not explicit at all, since "GPL", as it stands, may also
> mean "whatever existed at the time the project was conceived, or
> any later [gpl] version", IOW, v2+. Is that ok?

OK! Better safe than sorry.
The GPLv2 is fine for me. If you need any other license, just ask.
Bear in mind that my code is based on Stephane's.
He gave me explicit permission the maintain his code and further develop it, 
but a specific license would be better.

-- 
Bye,
   Massimiliano Hofer
        Nucleus

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2008-08-01 11:34, Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
>> >
>> >I just supposed it was implicit, since my code is tied to a GPLv2 project.
>>
>> It is not explicit at all, since "GPL", as it stands, may also
>> mean "whatever existed at the time the project was conceived, or
>> any later [gpl] version", IOW, v2+. Is that ok?
>
>OK! Better safe than sorry.
>The GPLv2 is fine for me. If you need any other license, just ask.
>Bear in mind that my code is based on Stephane's.
>He gave me explicit permission the maintain his code and further develop it, 
>but a specific license would be better.

Well how about "v2 or later"?

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Massimiliano Hofer]

On Friday 1 August 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> Well how about "v2 or later"?

If you'd like "v2 or v3", I may agree.
Anyway I don't like the idea of an unspecified future license. It defeats the 
very goal of free software.

On a purely practical note, given that the kernel code has to be GPLv2 (for 
the forseeable future), won't it be a license nightmare if the userspace were 
under a different license?
I know the userspace is not derived form the kernel, but this would surely add 
complexity.

-- 
Bye,
   Massimiliano Hofer
        Nucleus

P.S.: I don't want to start a flame war. It's just my opinion and I respect 
other people's (different) views.

Re: xtables-addons license (was: patch-o-matic problems..?)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2008-07-25 06:01, Andrew Schulman wrote:

>> >3) Add documentation on reasons why moving to Xtables and how it works
>> >to Netfilter.org
>> 
>> 4) Tell distributions to package it so users don't have to worry about (3)
>
>Jan, I'm working on creating Debian packages of xtables-addons.  I'm not a
>Debian developer, but I can still post the packages.
>
>But there's a problem:  there's no overall license file, and a lot of the source
>files don't have license statements in them.  Here are the source files I find
>with no license:

I hope that is now fixed with the 1.5.5 release just pushed out.