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

Re: snort ?



Matthias Saou wrote :

> Michael Schwendt wrote :
> 
> [...]
> > Also, with "ready" I mean that an rpmbuild rebuild creates the binary
> > packages as intended. The latest src.rpm you linked now still does not
do
> > that, but requires lots of manual switches. Other comments posted
before.
> > The package would benefit from a cleanup.
> > 
> > Btw, I'm perfectly fine if somebody else wants to sponsor this package
> > now or when it's considered ready. I find enough packages to review in
> > the fedora.us queue.
> 
> I'd be willing to cleanup, test and import the package. I last used snort
> about 4 or 5 years ago, but am quite curious to see how it has evolved
;-)

Started looking at it... yes, there is quite some cleanup to be done to get
a readable Fedora-centric spec, but nothing too hard. My main concern, and
I'd like opinions regarding it, is with the database backends. I see two
immediate solutions :
1) Link against both mysql and postgresql and have the package require both
database's libs by default.
2) Keep different binaries as it is now, but replace the nasty scriplets
that link "snort" to the various "snort-*" binaries and use alternatives
instead.

I personally prefer 1), while providing --without rebuild switches for both
backends (and keeping a --with oracle, as it doesn't cost much, like there
is in the php spec).

Dan : I hope you don't see this as a "hostile takeover" of the spec, it's
just that having it shorter and more readable will greatly help maintaining
the package.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.753_FC3
Load : 0.25 0.31 0.54


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