[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fail2ban + Shorewall Question



> Hello all,
>
> 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:
>
> ]# 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 so that the dependency of shorewall is only enacted
> when desired.
>
Or maybe drop the require on shorewall completely. People willing to
enable the shorewall functionality can install it manually. fail2ban needs
to be configured to do anything useful after installation, installing
shorewall might just be an additional step.

Btw, the Fedora package suffer from the same limitation, whatever is done
should be on all branches.

Regards,
Xavier


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]