[forgot the list, sent again] Hi, On 27.01.2021 12:32, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello Matthias, > >> On 26 Jan 2021, at 16:45, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 25.01.2021 20:27, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> Hello Matthias, >>> >>> Thank you for submitting the patch. >>> >>> It is great to see more people taking part in development tasks, but I am not really sure what has been done here. >>> >>> The main problem is that I do not know what IPTraffic does, or how it works. The code is in a tarball and I am not aware if there is a Git repository to see what has been changed over time. I'm working on this. >> ... >> I must confess I was puzzled after reading through all of it - its a pity. > > I agree and I am very sorry for all the time you have invested into this with now very little result. Yep. But thats life. I just take it as it is and try to make the best out of it. >> Perhaps I should have coded this for Pakfire in a different manner... > ... > No, I do not think that that was the thing that broke this. > > As Bernhard has pointed out, the design of this add-on has some issues that would have to be ironed out and they sound to me like they are a lot of work. It might even be worth to start from scratch and get a much better design of this and only take the bits of the code that are acceptable right now. I hope that this can be done - but I got no experience or enough knowledge to rewrite this, so I hope we find somebody else. >> As I see it, Bernhard has already looked through the code. >> The only thing I can think of now: I could rewrite the build process - >> if this makes still sense, let me know. If it doesn't fit our needs - >> than thats it. >> >>>... >>> You can use “git commit —-author=…” to set the correct author and you should sign-off as yourself as usual. >> >> FYI: >> This is exactly what I did in the *first* commit... > ... > Oh I didn’t see that. Very good :) It was just a short search and again I learned something new about GIT. I'm taking it positive... >>> So to go back to the usual question: What is being proposed here and why? >>> >>> Who is this add-on for? What are its features, and what are its limitations? >>> >>> Why is this realised as add-on and not as part of the core system? I do not want to suggest that it should be either. It just seems that this decision has been made I would like to know based on what reasons :) >> >> As I see it - it was once written as an addon and just stayed in this >> condition. No one had the idea to integrate it. Simple. > > We have a couple of those abandoned things on here, which is sad, but I suppose each of them has their own reasons. > > It would be better if software is abandoned before it is being merged instead of after - because then it might cause us trouble later. Yep. That happened in the past - I don't need it in the future. >> Don't get me wrong - I'm not offended - just a little disappointed how >> the whole thing has gone here at once and would definitely try to still >> get the best out of it. > > What do you suggest we should do right now? As a start, I rewrote the whole building and installation process - I got rid of the tarball. I would test if its ok - one of the 'Devels' is already working on it - and building as expected and then push it to GIT / Patchwork. This would make the current code readable and transparent to everybody. Suggestion: Then "someone" (sorry, not me, thats far beyond my capabilities) should be able to decide whether she/he is able to use and rewrite the existing code to eliminate the disussed "shortcomings" (Google translate, I don't know if this fits!) and if it can be integrated or publishd as an addon. I can't decide if it would be better to start from scratch, see above (Bernhards comments). Best, Matthias [cut: unneeded installation code]