2009/7/10 BJ Dierkes <wdierkes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello all, > I originally posted this on the epel-devel-list, but was referred by the > EPEL maintainer of fail2ban to bring the discussion upstream to Fedora in > hopes of convincing the Fedora maintainer of fail2ban to make these changes. > The following was my original message: > --- > I bring this to the list being that the issue isn't necessarily a bug, > rather a concern about implementation. Per the documentation > [http://www.fail2ban.org/wiki/index.php/MANUAL_0_8] fail2ban is _capable_ of > supporting shorewall (among other things) and even states that "the > following software is optional but recommended" with reference to shorewall. > However, fail2ban does not _require_ shorewall to function. > > That said, having a 'Requires: shorewall' in the fail2ban spec seems > unnecessary and in my opinion improper. Breaking the package out into a sub > package doesn't seem necessary either... being that the only file(s) I see > that could be split off would be: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244275 > > ]# rpm -ql fail2ban | grep shorewall > /etc/fail2ban/action.d/shorewall.conf > > > Regardless, for the sake of those that have no interest in shorewall (and in > particular those that want to avoid having to support shorewall) I'd like to > suggest that fail2ban-shorewall be broken off in a sub-package or simply > drop the Requires: shorewall completely so that the dependency of shorewall > is only enacted when desired (or not at all). > > Thoughts? > > Thank you for your time. > > --- > derks > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
