On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
This makes it possible to uninstall iptables, as long as nftables is installed.
Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com> --- libvirt.spec.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 05f7a7e7c0..55f32172b3 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ Summary: Network driver plugin for the libvirtd daemon Requires: libvirt-daemon-common = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libvirt-libs = %{version}-%{release} Requires: dnsmasq >= 2.41 -Requires: iptables +Requires: (iptables or nftables)
I know I suggested this last time, but looking again I wonder if we ought to be more opinionated. While from a technical POV we can use either, both RHEL and Fedora default to nftables for quite a while now. IOW, shoudl we do %if 0%{?rhel} >= 10 || 0%{?fedora} >= 41 Requires: nftables %else Requires: iptbles %endif users still get to choose to use either nftbles or iptables but we force install of the package we consider to be the default. This would reduce chances of a user making a mistake only having iptables installed, at the time they instal libvirt, when they would really be quite happy with the default of nftables. The only downside is that non-default deployments would have both nftables & iptables RPMs present, but that feels harmless given the size of the packages is tiny. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|