On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:09:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > - Do we do this by default, because firewalld is the default firewall in > Fedora? I would not want to require firewalld though because fail2ban > can work perfectly fine without it, so it would be broken by default on > systems without firewalld installed (or enabled). I'm not a fan of that, as it goes from default to mandatory more quickly than it should. > - Stick it in a fail2ban-firewalld sub-package that requires firewalld. > Downside is that people need to figure out that they really should > install this for default installs. Upside is it is easier to use > without firewalld (don't need to find and remove the > fedora-firewalld.conf file). This gets my vote. An alternate approach would be to make fail2ban be a virtual package that requires fail2ban-firewalld and a new fail2ban-server subpackage which contains the actual thing. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
