[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 matthias.fischer@ipfire.org 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]