snort ?
Matthias Saou
thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Thu Feb 3 22:24:52 UTC 2005
Enrico Scholz wrote :
> > Feedback very welcome of course!
>
> ok...
>
> * is there a 'make' missing in %build?
Indeed, d'oh! :-)
> * rules should be installed with the '-p' switch to keep timestamps
> (useful e.g. for automatic updates)
Right, can always be useful.
> * %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d should be written as %_initrddir
That one, I'm not sure. No one has ever been able to confirm or dis-confirm
to me if this confusing name was normal or actually a typo. %_initddir or
%_rcinitdir I would have understood... but %_initrddir!? IMHO, having
"initrd" is really weird, that's why I tend ot avoid that macro altogether
:-/
> * Requires(...): are missing for the %scriptlets
Yup, thanks for noticing.
> * I would put the rules into a separate subpackage to allow easier
> updates
I guess you mean "custom" or "local" updates, right? Indeed, it could be
interesting to override the defaults. So, a "snort-rules" package with
mutual requirements between it and "snort" is what you'd expect? In
general, I'd probably be opposed to such a split, but in this case, as this
is a package that is clearly targeted at sysadmins and advanced users, it
does make sense.
> * As I like and use minimal systems I would prefer -mysql, -postgresql
> subpackages which use 'alternatives' to set a link to
> /usr/sbin/snortd. So, unneeded dependencies will be prevented
I understand, but that will add quite a bit of complexity to the package...
the postgresql-libs are only 360kB and don't have any special deps, so the
extra 420kB created by an additional snort binary makes it a loosing
situation, definitely not "worth the trouble" from my POV. OTOH, mysql
pulls in 5MB+ and some deps (perl modules and eventually others on minimal
systems), so maybe just only enabling PostgreSQL support by default could
be done, as it is the "preferred" RH/FC detabase anyway, and leave the
MySQL optional with the rpmbuild switch?
Or... just have alternatives choose between the plain version and another
"db" version which has both databases supported? Hey, I actually think this
last idea isn't that bad :-)
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.760_FC3
Load : 0.33 0.24 0.18
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list