Patch for adding support for bridge and bond interfaces and support showing speed as mbit/mbytes/gbit/gbytes

[Anders Kvist]

Binary package hint: iptraf

http://lnxbx.dk/~akv/files/iptraf-patches.tar.bz2

I have been in contact with the developer, but it doesn't seem like the patch is going to be added even tough he said he would...

Summary of changes:
- fixing a problem with strcpy (think this is fixed by various package maintainers, but not in iptraf release)
- adding support for bridging and bonding interfaces (promisc mode needs to be enabled in iptraf config)
- mbit/mbytes/gbit/gbytes support for traffic speed (iptraf is quite old and transfer rates have grown a bit since then)

It sure would be nice to have this added to new releases :)

/Anders

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

attaching the patch to this ticket so it will not get lost

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

Thank you for providing the patches. Have you talked to the Debian maintainer if he was willing to include them?

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

The attachment "iptraf-patches.tar.bz2" seems to be a patch. If it isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu-reviewers, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issues please contact him.]

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

there's also the fork iptraf-ng (looks like this was triggered by an inactive upstream which was also hinted at in this ticket)

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

I guess the strcpy bug has been taken care of

iptraf (3.0.0-8) unstable; urgency=low

  * src/ifaces.c: fix strcpy bug (patch by Thomas Themel) (closes: #590526)

 -- Frederic Peters <email address hidden> Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:50:48 +0200

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

patch 1 for strcpy still applies fine to the latest source from Debian unstable. So does patch 3. Compilation in precise of the patched code finishes successfully. Patch 2 fails to apply. Anders, can you please rebase the patch to the latest codebase?

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

Anders, it would also be good to know if these patches are applicable to iptraf-ng as well

[Robie Basak (racb)]

Removing ubuntu-14.04-beta-1 milestone, since we're past feature freeze now. There is currently no Ubuntu delta for this package; I'm hesitant to suggest introducing one, particularly where upstream and Debian both appear mostly inactive.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

An inactive Debian maintainer and upstream is reason NOT to introduce a delta? I would think the opposite being the case.

It's really sad to see Ubuntu letting so many valuable patches bitrot to death. Shame on Ubuntu! (this might sound harsh, but I feel my history with Ubuntu and FOSS "entitles" me to make this provocative comment. I'm certainly doing my part to change this situation I bemoan)

[Robie Basak (racb)]

> Shame on Ubuntu!

I don't think this is fair. Taking arbitrary patches that aren't upstream impose a maintenance burden. I don't mind if some other person or group wants to take that on, but I don't, which is why I'm declining to introduce a delta in Ubuntu for this package.

> I'm certainly doing my part to change this situation I bemoan

Please become active upstream, release something that fixes this bug, and get it sorted in Debian. Then you'll have fixed the problem for the entire FOSS community, not just Ubuntu.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

On 20.03.2014 00:07, Robie Basak wrote:
> Taking arbitrary patches that aren't upstream impose a maintenance burden.

Please discuss the patch that IS available in this ticket for almost
four years on it's technical merits and demerits instead of calling
other people's work "arbitrary". It makes your argument sound rather
arbitrary IMVHO.

You said yourself that upstream is inactive. Same goes for Debian.
That I think is a reason FOR introducing a patch and delta, not against
it. Your line of argument really simply surprised me on that point. If
ever there is a reason for Ubuntu to carry a Delta isn't it for an
important piece of software that is lingering upstream and in Debian?
Again, we should discuss the technical merits and demerits.

>> I'm certainly doing my part to change this situation I bemoan
> Please become active upstream, release something that fixes this bug,
> and get it sorted in Debian. Then you'll have fixed the problem for the
> entire FOSS community, not just Ubuntu.

I am a Debian Maintainer, thank you. I am very active with bug triage,
including this ticket. Yet, I can't save the world on my own. For
example, I have no upload rights to Ubuntu whatsoever.

Re "release something that fixes this bug". Really? There IS a patch
attached to this ticket, you know. For a Debian NMU, I'd need to be DD.

BTW, even though it must sound like it, this does not go against you
personally. You're just the poor guy who actually had the courage to
touch this ticket ;-) I appreciate that, but I still maintain that it
is a shame that Ubuntu routinely let's other people's helpful work bitrot.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

Without upload rights to Ubuntu, I can't fix the situation. The best I can do is to plead here and backport iptraf-ng to precise as well as an iptraf package including this patch in my "stable PPA"

https://launchpad.net/~r0lf/+archive/stable

HTH

[Nish Aravamudan (nacc)]

iptraf-ng is in Trusty and Xenial, does that fix the issue at-hand? Precise is nearing EOL. iptraf has also been removed from Debian now, in favor of iptraf-ng.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

With the removal of iptraf from Debian unstable it's also been dropped from Zesty. Closing all iptraf bugs in Ubuntu as wontfix.