search

mikemol / fireholv6

Firehol firewall with patches for IPv6 support
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=27014139
GNU General Public License v2.0
5 stars 1 forks source link

Some minor fixes and debian packaging #8

Closed foxycode closed 12 years ago

foxycode commented 12 years ago
mikemol commented 12 years ago

Sweet. Phil and I will give it a look over ASAP.

2012/1/27 Tomáš Jacík reply@reply.github.com:

  • set proper chmod
  • added ipv6 regex while searching for RESERVED adresses
  • fixed msn port
  • added OpenVPN port
  • added Nagios NRPE daemon port
  • added wait for interface feature
  • added default firehol setting probing for debian based systems
  • added wizzard support wlan
  • added debian packaging

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

 git pull https://github.com/foxycode/fireholv6 master

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

 https://github.com/mikemol/fireholv6/pull/8

-- Commit Summary --

  • - set proper chmod
  • Set proper chmod

-- File Changes --

A adblock.sh (0) A buildrpm.sh (0) A debian/NEWS (9) A debian/README.Debian (19) A debian/README.Services (33) A debian/README.source (2) A debian/RESERVED_IPV4 (21) A debian/RESERVED_IPV6 (16) A debian/bittorrent.conf (3) A debian/changelog (252) A debian/conffiles (5) A debian/control (17) A debian/copyright (27) A debian/files (1) A debian/firehol.examples (1) A debian/get-iana.1 (30) A debian/get-iana.1.txt (30) A debian/init.d/firehol (68) A debian/postinst (22) A debian/postrm (13) A debian/rules (85) A debian/source/format (1) A examples/client-all.conf (0) A examples/office.conf (0) M firehol.sh (63) A get-iana.sh (0)

-- Patch Links --

 https://github.com/mikemol/fireholv6/pull/8.patch  https://github.com/mikemol/fireholv6/pull/8.diff

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/mikemol/fireholv6/pull/8

:wq

philwhineray commented 12 years ago

Indeed, thanks.

I think it will be helpful to include some .deb packaging as it will make distribution easier.

Having said that, I don't know if it's appropriate to import the debian/changelog and debian/NEWS and maybe a couple of others in their current form, since those are to do specifically with the official Debian package.

I imagine it would be better to make a note of the Debian fixes within the main Changelog (which looks like it needs sprucing up too...) so that if/when the Debian packagers get ahold of the update they will continue to have their own changelog unmolested.

foxycode commented 12 years ago

I used original ubuntu packaging scripts with some updates. I know changelog should be updated, but I haven't time to do this and I can't delete it. Without changelog package can't be build. If you want, merge only code fixes and keep packaging for later.

mikemol commented 12 years ago

Can the changelog be appropriately derived from the git log somehow?

:wq

foxycode commented 12 years ago

I am not sure, it needs specific format as I know. You can try do script for it or find some.

http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html part 4.4

mikemol commented 12 years ago

I know it has a particular format. I was mostly trying to figure out how appropriate a full git log, massaged into the correct format, would be.

:wq

foxycode commented 12 years ago

I am not sure if it is good idea. Gitlog should be very very long and in your repo firehol is no longer versioned. When I did merge, I upgraded old firehol package to new version from your repo and inserted new version description into changelog.

My idea is add some major updates from gitlog to last record of package changelog and let it be. You can wipe older records in changelog if you want it cleaner. In fact, this is not the same package as fireholt package in debian package tree and should change name if you want it send to debian maintainers.

mikemol commented 12 years ago

Fair points.

As far as a distinct package name, I suppose this codebase should probably be called fireholv6. Regarding comparison with original Firehol package...Whatever happened with the original firehol upstream? I know they're on SourceForge, and that they use SVN, but I don't know if any of Phil's changes ever got looked at for reintroduction.

Also, it brings to mind that there should probably be tags in the fireholv6 tree. (And perhaps remarks associated with those would be appropriate for generating changelogs...)

:wq

foxycode commented 12 years ago

According to original firehol changelog, last update was Tue Oct 5 21:10:08 2010 UTC (15 months, 3 weeks ago). I belive original project is dead. Maybe we should try get original repo access from them and bring it back to life. I am using firehol long time and don't want to change. I can help you with your fork little if you want.

mikemol commented 12 years ago

I dunno.

A) Were there any updates there that haven't made it to fireholv6? B) What do you think, Phil? This fork has been your baby long before I touched it. C) What do the people on the mailing list for the original Firehol think? D) I don't want to go back to svn.

I'm probably partial to GitHub's interface, at least for the present. I believe SourceForge's support for DVCSs has a ways to go.

2012/1/27 Tomáš Jacík reply@reply.github.com:

According to original firehol changelog, last update was Tue Oct 5 21:10:08 2010 UTC (15 months, 3 weeks ago). I belive original project is dead. Maybe we should try get original repo access from them and bring it back to life. I am using firehol long time and don't want to change. I can help you with your fork little if you want.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/mikemol/fireholv6/pull/8#issuecomment-3697747

:wq

foxycode commented 12 years ago

a) I don't know when you started with v6 guys, tell me. If there are some updates, should be easy to find. c) I looked to original firehol mailing list and it is not much used. d) You can continue on github, but will be great to tell people where to find successor

And Your tag idea for v6 is great.

philwhineray commented 12 years ago

If you go back to the original repo, it's not even svn, it's cvs. I don't want to use that, but I'm not fussed otherwise.

I don't know if original is dead or just glacial. Timeline-wise I submitted some patches on the SourceForge site in May 2010. There are a couple of commits post my git fork. I have been maintaining a pure mirror here: git://repo.or.cz/fireholvi.git in branch cvs-mirror and I believe that all changes to the original firehol have been included.

I posted to the mailing lists a couple of times but did not get a huge response. There are definitely a few people using it, though. I was hoping the patches might be encouraged for inclusion in the original project but at this point I don't think it's particularly likely.

The users list seems more heavily subscribed than the devs so maybe it would be better to sort out some of the bits above and remaining niggles and produce an official release because the offer of a git repo and patches (per my originals) may be targetting the wrong audience.

I'm not sure if we should post any release announcement using the existing infrastructure unless we got agreement from Costa Tsaousis first. It would definitely be one of the best places to find an audience. I don't suppose SourceForge would want us continuing to use their architecture for a project hosted elsewhere long-term, so we'd need to make arrangements.

Also, pertinent to packaging: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=292621

philwhineray commented 12 years ago

I have pushed the non-debian package bits into the staging branch. It looks OK to me. Since I cherry-picked the second commit and it has a new there may be a bit of trouble merging back to the foxycode repo,

philwhineray commented 12 years ago

I have pushed the debian package components as-is into a separate "packaging" branch so we can decide what to clean up for inclusion.

FWIW I am OK with someone merging staging onto master at this point, unless we want to do a bit more cleanup first. The bottom line is that master needs some cleanup anyway so I don't think we gain much by holding off at this point. When it reflects a meaningful release I would want to be more careful.

foxycode commented 12 years ago

So, what do you need from me now? Have I split this commits into separate ones for staging and packaging branch? I am not sure how to cancel last commits.

philwhineray commented 12 years ago

So, what do you need from me now? Have I split this commits into separate ones for staging and packaging branch? I am not sure how to cancel last commits.

Well, I have split the commits, reordered and pushed into this repo. It does mean that the new commits have my id in them.

So you have two choices. You could just reimport this repo, or you could reorder your own commits with git rebase -i, in which case I will re-pull with your id.

As a general rule you can use git reflog to find an earlier id and then git reset --hard to put you repo into that state.

foxycode commented 12 years ago

Finally I did it easy way. Deleted and forked again my repo :)