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

Re: snort ?



On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:07:42 -0600, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:

> > Nobody said that.  Apparently, the rpms are not ready.  
> 
> Are you still looking at the ancient ones?

No. 2.3.something, but you never link a specific src.rpm, so better do
that. [Did you miss my comment in bugzilla?]

> We have been supporting
> Fedora RPMs with snort all along, just didn't get updated in the Fedora
> area.  The past is irrelavant at this point to me, I'm looking at the
> current RPMs which are much much more refined and build just fine.  If
> the Fedora naming scheme is different than what is "officially posted" I
> am MORE than happy to drop the 0.fdr out of the name and make the naming
> scheme more "standard".  This would also allow me to rip out all of the
> special clauses to build specifically for Fedora.  
> 
> So my question still stands, what would it take to get the CURRENT snort
> 2.3.0+ RPMs included in Fedora Extras?

 - A candidate source rpm which is considered "ready",
 - which is roughly the same quality as other packages in Fedora
   Extras,
 - and a sponsor who would serve as a proxy to CVS for updates
   until Fedora Extras is ready to accept project contributors
   and create accounts for them.

Revised package submission and QA policies for Fedora Extras are not known
yet. So, fedora.us documents should be taken as a good guideline.

-- 
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux 2.6.10-1.760_FC3
loadavg: 1.00 1.00 1.19


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