On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:42 +1300, Michael J Knox wrote: > Stephen J. Smoogen said: > > On 2/14/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Looking at this old patched version. I had to make some changes to Bro > >> > that I sent upstream, and could not use the %configure but had to add > >> > some entries to make it do what it should and not what it wanted. > >> > > >> > If the /svr/bro tree is allowed in extras.. that would clean up most > >> > of the problems. Bro is a server/service. If it isnt.. expect to do a > >> > bunch of cleanup. I think that most of my patch doesnt work with the > >> > later versions due to offsets and such. > >> > > >> > > > > Talked to Seth on IRC, and /srv is also not the correct place for it > > either from the FHS.. The bro package is going to need a lot of little > > patches to match the FHS I think. > > > > > > Could /opt/bro be a possability? > > I have started the trek of patching up bro to be a little more FHS > friendly, but no idea as to when I will be finished. > /opt is discouraged for package-managed software. right now I think your only hope is patching bro and/or deeply abusing the authors to use the various tools available to them more effectively. -sv -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
