❦ 30 septembre 2014 14:07 +0200, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez <[email protected]> :
>> I would also be interested to see a backport of nftables. The kernel in
>> wheezy-backports is 3.16.3. Is it missing something? If yes, what should
>> be added?
>
> There is not something missing.
>
> TL;DR: I would propose to backport the *next* release of nftables, if any.
>
> nftables 0.3 will be soon superseded and obsoleted by a new release.
> As said before, I don't think it worth backporting.
>
> My main concern is to invest time in backporting stuff (not just the
> nftables package, but also the depends, ie libnftnl) just to find that
> a new release has come and all your playing, testing and bug reports
> for v0.3-bpo are no longer meaningful.
>
> I guess the next nftables release will happen with linux kernel 3.18.
> That will be indeed a good moment to backport to wheezy, if any moment
> is good at this stage..
>
> I'm considering to don't let nftables to enter jessie-stable. nftables
> v0.3 has nothing to do in a 'stable' system.
> For me, nftables in stable means: please, use nftables to deploy your
> next firewall. At the moment, nftables is not stable software and you
> should keep using iptables.
>
> Please, let me know your thoughts.
I am fine with that. Thanks!
--
Make sure special cases are truly special.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
