[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: snort ?

> 2.) An update request stalled in QA because it was a huge and complete
> rewrite which had many issues, and when built, it didn't result in binary
> packages which would upgrade the existing fedora.us packages. Interest in
> fixing it and getting an update published didn't seem to exist.

This is the first I have heard of this.

> While the old update tried to cover SuSE Linux and other distributions
> with lots of conditional spec sections, that newest one fiddles with
> macros to switch between Fedora and Caos. Lots of other conditionals
> increase the spec file's size to 2.4 times the size of Dag Wieers'
> spec. 

Just curious, but what does the size of the .spec file mean?  I have
seen some pretty big, complicated .specs coming out of RH for packages,
so little confused about why this seems to be so important to you.

> And it should at least build with defaults and not require lots of
> manual --with/without switches.

I agree with this one.

> I'm not aware of any new package submission policies for Fedora Extras
> yet. These will likely come in the future.
> I don't know whether we apply any first-come first-served rule when
> somebody submits a package. ;)
> It has been suggested that maybe Dag Wieers, who also maintains Snort
> packages, might want to maintain them in Fedora Extras, too.
> If multiple people are interested in creating and maintaining Snort
> packages in Fedora Extras, it would be great if they discussed and
> finished a candidate source rpm. Starting there, it could be imported into
> CVS and built for testing.

That's fine with me too obviously, it just seems odd that you wouldn't
want the people maintaining the official RPMs to maintain these too with
little to no extra effort.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]