On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:50:46AM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > On 11/28/18 2:10 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > > On 11/28/18 1:44 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Now that the iptables.git repo offers arptables-nft and ebtables-nft, > >> arptables.git holds arptables-legacy, etc, why we don't just rename the > >> repos? > >> > >> * from arptables.git to arptables-legacy.git > >> * from ebtables.git to ebtables-legacy.git > >> > >> This rename should help distros understand the differences between them > >> and better accommodate the packaging of all the related tooling. > >> > >> Mind that the rename may have side effects in tarball > >> generation/publishing etc. I would expect the new arptables tarball to > >> include the '-legacy' keyword, and same for ebtables. > >> > >> If we go ahead with the rename, a new release is worth having, > >> announcing these changes as well. > >> > > > > Also, > > > > please consider applying the attached patch. > > > > ping :-)
Phil suggested no rename of the trees, I can update the description in git.netfilter.org to place LEGACY there. Concern as you mentioned is that it may break existing links/scripts. Not sure git support redirections from old repo URI to new one... I think it's fine to apply a patch to add the "-legacy" postfix as we do in iptables. Are you OK with this approach? Thanks.
