From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] New package: IPTraffic 0.8.2 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:36:43 +0100 Message-ID: <29a71fd3-9116-0c94-0b5e-7819650d5261@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <6EF68E91-657C-4C1E-8CA2-48E59B1E8979@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7988234861750613421==" List-Id: --===============7988234861750613421== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [forgot the list, sent again] Hi, On 27.01.2021 12:32, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello Matthias, >=20 >> On 26 Jan 2021, at 16:45, Matthias Fischer = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> On 25.01.2021 20:27, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> Hello Matthias, >>>=20 >>> Thank you for submitting the patch. >>>=20 >>> It is great to see more people taking part in development tasks, but I am= not really sure what has been done here. >>>=20 >>> The main problem is that I do not know what IPTraffic does, or how it wor= ks. 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. >=20 > I agree and I am very sorry for all the time you have invested into this wi= th 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. >=20 > 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 o= f 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. >>=20 >>>...=20 >>> You can use =E2=80=9Cgit commit =E2=80=94-author=3D=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D to = set the correct author and you should sign-off as yourself as usual. >>=20 >> FYI: >> This is exactly what I did in the *first* commit... > ... > Oh I didn=E2=80=99t 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? >>>=20 >>> Who is this add-on for? What are its features, and what are its limitatio= ns? >>>=20 >>> Why is this realised as add-on and not as part of the core system? I do n= ot 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 :) >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > We have a couple of those abandoned things on here, which is sad, but I sup= pose each of them has their own reasons. >=20 > It would be better if software is abandoned before it is being merged inste= ad 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. >=20 > 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] --===============7988234861750613421==--