Re: packaging suggestions.

[seth vidal <skvidal linux duke edu>]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:42 +1300, Michael J Knox wrote:
> Stephen J. Smoogen said:
> > On 2/14/06, seth vidal <skvidal linux duke edu> 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