raubvogel at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 22:53:29 CET 2013
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Whineray <phil.whineray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:56:45PM -0500, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Where do we stand on getting sanewall into distributions?
>> > AFAIK, it's not in Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, CentOS.
>> > I can probably do the Debian and Gentoo packaging at this point. I'm
>> > not a dev for either project, but I've got experience building
>> > packages for both. Ubuntu might be a tad stranger, simply owing to
>> > their use of Upstart. In theory, systemd isn't supposed to be too
>> > hard, so it should be possible to support both sysvinit and systemd on
>> > Gentoo.
>> I think if we can put it in Debian, ubuntu is easier. By that I
>> mean they keep worrying about upstream compatibility. But, I can try
>> to do the ubuntu madness. In the immortal words of Jeremy Clarkson,
>> what can possibly go wrong?
> Not too much, I hope!
> If it helps, the bits I have been using to produce the .deb and .rpm
> downloadables are here:
> It should be possible to hack build-deb and setup.sh around to just use
> the downloadable tar if you wanted to avoid having to deal with any
> documentation-building dependencies (like java, ant, and docbook in
> the experimental tree).
> The .deb works as is on Ubuntu, I don't know if the use of sysvinit would
> be a blocker for distribution.
> The main thing I think needs consideration is what to do if firehol is
> already installed. Currently sanewall steals the configuration but it
> should probably play nicer than that.
> I think the Debian maintainer for firehol may be subscribed to this list,
> IIRC he was considering orphaning the package - I don't know if that
Then we need to find him, mesmerize him, and convince him to
help us push sanewall into Debian. *Evil music placeholder*
> I have been trying to motivate myself to write a proper manual before
> getting onto more interesting things. Perhaps I should go with what is
> there now, so we can move on, get the ipv6 bits included and hopefully
> I have a complete set of manpages which I am happy with but no other
> manual content (or website, really, as people have noted). Turns out I
> have high standards and low motivation when it comes to documentation;
> probably a bad combination...
> Sanewall-Dev mailing list
> Sanewall-Dev at lists.sanewall.org
More information about the Sanewall-Dev