svn commit: r417895 - in head/net: ndpi ntopng

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 09:16:40AM +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On 07/02/16 22:01, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > ...
> > If this is not 1.8, it should not be called 1.8 but 1.8.1 or similar.
> 
> The upstream did not create a new version, which is something I cannot
> do. I would just lie by marking the port as 1.8.1 if there is no 1.8.1
> release upstream.

Correct, and lying is bad.

> The commit I am taking is just a few commits ahead of the 1.8 tag and
> contains fixes which I could have imported as patches i files, like we
> are doing all the time (I mean importing upstream patches), I did prefer
> to just move ahead on the upstream repository for coherence with their
> sources.

Correct, it should be version 1.8 just like you did.

> Apart from talking to the upstream and ask them to tag minor releases
> (which I'm going to do BTW, I just need time ti coordinate about this) I
> have these options(in random order):
> 
> - add a date to the ndpi version (like 1.8.2016.07.02) to differentiate
> from the 1.8 tag (imho this is overkill for just a few small
> modifications from upstream)

Rationale in parentheses is valid; it *is* an overkill for little benefit.

> - revert my last commit opn ndpi and disengage the ntopng port from it,
> using a statically linked ndpi in it like upstream is doing (which would
> anyway come from the same sources ndpi port is using a t present)
> 
> - maybe create a ndpi-stable port? this would definitely be overkill.
> 
> - point the port at the tag and cherry pick some fixes from upstream as
> local patches in files. This would be just formally different from what
> I'm doing now.

There's nothing to fix as nothing is broken.  Move along. ;-)

./danfe