On 30 September 2014 10:29, Vincent Bernat <[email protected]> wrote: > ❦ 15 septembre 2014 10:50 +0200, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez > <[email protected]> : > >>> as the title says, it would be nice if a backport of nftables was >>> provided for Wheezy, as backports of kernels 3.13+ are already available >>> for it. > >> nftables 0.3 is a very young version. I don't think it worth backporting. >> Also, the kernel in backports lacks of some key improvements of the >> framework. >> >> I would recommend you to wait until next releases of nftables (kernel, >> libnftnl, nft). > > I would also be interested to see a backport of nftables. The kernel in > wheezy-backports is 3.16.3. Is it missing something? If yes, what should > be added?
There is not something missing. TL;DR: I would propose to backport the *next* release of nftables, if any. nftables 0.3 will be soon superseded and obsoleted by a new release. As said before, I don't think it worth backporting. My main concern is to invest time in backporting stuff (not just the nftables package, but also the depends, ie libnftnl) just to find that a new release has come and all your playing, testing and bug reports for v0.3-bpo are no longer meaningful. I guess the next nftables release will happen with linux kernel 3.18. That will be indeed a good moment to backport to wheezy, if any moment is good at this stage.. I'm considering to don't let nftables to enter jessie-stable. nftables v0.3 has nothing to do in a 'stable' system. For me, nftables in stable means: please, use nftables to deploy your next firewall. At the moment, nftables is not stable software and you should keep using iptables. Please, let me know your thoughts. regards. -- Arturo Borrero González -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
