Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 2013/04/12, at 22:31, Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013/04/11, at 13:18, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lack of maintainer in a near future would lead to bitrot due to changes
>>>> in other areas of network stack, kernel APIs, etc. This already happens,
>>>> many changes during 10.0-CURRENT cycle were only compile tested wrt
>>>> ipfilter. If we fail to find maintainer, then a correct decision would be
>>>> to remove ipfilter(4) from the base system before 10.0-RELEASE.
>>> This has been discussed in the past. Every time someone came up and said "I'm still using ipfilter!" and the idea to remove it dies with it. 
>>> I've been saying we should remove it for 4 years now. Not only it's outdated but it also doesn't not fit well in the FreeBSD roadmap. Then there's the question of maintainability. We gave the author a commit bit so that he could maintain it. That doesn't happen anymore and it sounds like he has since moved away from FreeBSD. I cannot find any reason to burden another FreeBSD developer with maintaining ipfilter.
>>>
>> One thing that FreeBSD is bad about (and this really applies to many open source projects) when deprecating something is that the developer and release engineering groups rarely provide adequate, if any, tools to help users transition and cope with the deprecation.  The fear of deprecation can be largely overcome by giving these users a clear and comprehensive path forward.  Just announcing "ipfilter is going away.  EOM" is inadequate and leads to completely justified complaints from users.
> 
> I agree with the deprecation path, but given the amount of changes that happened in the last 6 months, I'm not even sure ipfilter is working fine in FreeBSD CURRENT, but I haven't tested it.
> 
>> So with that said, would it be possible to write some tutorials on how to migrate an ipfilter installation to pf?  Maybe some mechanical syntax docs accompanied by a few case studies?  Is it possible for a script to automate some of the common mechanical changes?  Also essential is a clear document on what goes away with ipfilter and what is gained with pf.  Once those tools are written, I suggest announcing that ipfilter is available but deprecated/unsupported in FreeBSD 10, and will be removed from FreeBSD 11.  Certain people will still pitch a fit about it departing, but if the tools are there to help the common users, you'll be successful in winning mindshare and general support.
> 
> 
> It's not very difficult to switch an ipf.conf/ipnat.conf to a pf.conf, but I'm not sure automated tools exist. I'm also not convinced we need to write them and I think the issue can be deal with by writing a bunch of examples on how to do it manually. Then we can give people 1y to switch.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Rui Paulo
> 

Wow boys, This conversation has gotten way off track. Looking for a 
maintainer for ipfilter is totally different than opening the dead 
subject of removing ipfilter from the system.

Look at openbsd's pf, its been forked and is now freebsd maintained. New 
upstream versions of Ipfilter have always needed tweaking before it can 
be included in the base system. If your unsatisfied with the lack of bug 
fixes, then ask the author for special permission to create a fork if 
his license don't allow it now.

The point is: ipfilter is part of FreeBSD and you are never going to 
remove it. Accept that fact.

So look for alternate ways to address your concerns about ipfilter bug 
fixs getting applied and/or updating ipfilter to function with vimage or 
changes to the Freebsd network stack and kernel APIs.

Finding a maintainer is the purpose of this post, and the solution to 
your concerns, so lets stay on subject, OK.