>having a bootable CD makes for a simpler > "appliance" that's easier to setup.
Creating a package on top of a distro that will maintain hardware support is the way to go. for ubuntu, the package 'remastersys' will take care of building a bootable ISO appliance after setup. Regards, Drew On 10/23/2010 12:56 PM, Arthur Clune wrote: > Sorry, that was a bad way of putting what I meant. CentOS is a > perfectly sensible choice for the base. What I meant was a more > standard/general build process e.g. the Fedora Spin stuff. Even if > it's not simpler than the current process (which I expect it would be) > it would be more commonly know. > > I just never get round to looking at it :( > > $ apt-get honeywall > > I can never decide about this one. It's clearly attractive, but the > counter argument is that having a bootable CD makes for a simpler > "appliance" that's easier to setup. > > Arthur > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Rob McMillen <rvmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Arthur, >> What would you consider a more general distro? >> > > _______________________________________________ Honeywall mailing list Honeywall@public.honeynet.org https://public.honeynet.org/mailman/listinfo/honeywall
