Looking for input on "locally patch tcpdump or merge in latest release from upstream?"

[Patrick Kelsey]

Hi,

I've had a patch for a capsicum-related issue in tcpdump sitting around
since last September (
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2014-September/052049.html)
that is still needed and that I want finally address in the tree (the patch
was reviewed by rwatson@ and pjd@ back then).

This issue was patched separately in the upstream tcpdump sources in
February (
https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/commit/887bf88fd058f8c0ef9a5af1a95b43753e3ad2eb),
along with a refactor of the associated capsicum code, and that work has
been present in tcpdump releases since 4.7.3 (
http://www.tcpdump.org/tcpdump-changes.txt).

The last tcpdump release imported into the FreeBSD tree was 4.6.2 (
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/vendor/tcpdump/).

tcpdump release import/merges have recently resulted in some confusion/lost
local patches due to the extent of the diffs (e.g., the thread at
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2015-February/067853.html).

I see three possible ways to proceed:

1. Apply the minimal-local-diff patch from last September to our local
tcpdump sources.  This seems like it might contribute to a future
difficult/lossy tcpdump vendor import/merge.

2. Import tcpdump 4.7.3 or later to address this issue.  Are there any
reasons why this might not be desired?  I don't have a feel for when/why
past tcpdump vendor imports have been performed or avoided.

3. Cherry-pick the upstream patch and apply it to our local sources,
directly addressing only this issue and avoiding future tcpdump vendor
import/merge problems related to this issue.

I'm looking for input on the above.  If left to my own devices, I'd go with
(3).

Thanks!

-Patrick