From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject:
 Re: Duplicate files created by 'iptables 1.6.0' and 'ebtables 2.0.10-4'
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 08:21:42 +0200
Message-ID: <56FE1376.9000804@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1459464825.30749.255.camel@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0918345809662358709=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============0918345809662358709==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On 01.04.2016 00:53, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 00:06 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> On 29.03.2016 23:00, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> >=20
>> > Hi,
>> >=20
>> > this actually should not happen.
>> Ok, then being suspicious was perhaps right.
>=20
> Yes.

Ok. Good.

>> >=20
>> > Why is iptables building ebtables stuff?
>> I think because its a new version. I wrote about this yesterday in "Some
>> delicate updates...", after I started preparing some updates, based on
>> 'next'. One of these is 'iptables 1.6.0'. While preparing a backup to
>> test these updates on my production machine, I noticed that some files
>> existed twice, in different directories, belonging to 'iptables' and
>> 'ebtables'. By now, I didn't go any further.
>>=20
>> >=20
>> > Have these two been merged?
>> Only one - 'ebtables':
>> 'add ebtables & arptables for configuring the filter of a
>> ethernet-bridge' was added 2008-03-25 by arne_f, 'ebtables: Update to
>> 2.0.10-4' was added 2012-11-11 by Michael Tremer, ;-)
>>=20
>> 'iptables 1.6.0' isn't even pushed or uploaded or anything else yet. I'm
>> just testing.
>=20
> I was actually asking if ebtables is merged into the iptables package.

Ups. Sorry, "academical misunderstood"...

> Maybe we should stay on the last release?!

For now, I'd say 'Yes'! I'll take a closer look at it!

>> > Can you disable it?
>> Thats why I'm asking here. I found no option yet to disable building the
>> 'libebt*-files in 'iptables 1.6.0'. For now I just commented the
>> duplicate files in the new 'iptables'-rootfile. If thats all I have to
>> do, then everything is fine. If not, we'll have to look for another
>> solution. I don't know - and can't judge yet - if commenting these files
>> could have any unwanted effects to any 'iptables'-functions. As long as
>> we stick to the '1.4.21'-version, nothing will happen.
>=20
> I think if you try to load the wrong files that should certainly break thin=
gs as
> there will be an ABI mismatch.
>=20
>>=20
>> By the way: at this moment, an additional test build, containing the
>> five updates from my previous post, was finished. Without any errors,
>> but again with the duplicates from 'iptables 1.6.0' and from 'ebtables'.
>> Do you want me to send the diffs? I could push them to GIT so you could
>> take a look.
>=20
> No need for me.
>=20
>>=20
>> Best, Matthias
>>=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > -Michael
>>=20
>> >=20
>> > On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 20:37 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> > >=20
>> > > Hi,
>> > >=20
>> > > As I wrote before I'm testing with 'iptables 1.6.0'.
>> > >=20
>> > > While looking which files I would need to backup so I could run some
>> > > tests on my production machine I found that 'iptables 1.6.0' and curre=
nt
>> > > 'ebtables 2.0.10-4' are building duplicate files.
>> > >=20
>> > > 'ebtables' puts them in '/usr/lib', 'iptables 1.6.0' in '/lib/xtables':
>> > >=20
>> > > libebt_802_3.so
>> > > libebt_ip.so
>> > > libebt_log.so
>> > > libebt_mark_m.so
>> > >=20
>> > > What would be the best way to handle this? Comment in (which?) rootfil=
e?
>> > >=20
>> > > As an info:
>> > > 'iptables 1.6.0' was build with the new option '--disable-nftables',
>> > > otherwise build failed: "fatal error: libnftnl/rule.h: No such file or
>> > > directory".
>> > >=20
>> > > Best,
>> > > Matthias
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>=20


--===============0918345809662358709==--