Vieri Di Paola wrote:
> --- Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So the packages included are:
>>
>> shorewall-common
>> shorewall-shell
>> shorewall-perl
>> shorewall-lite
>
> Do you think that future Shorewall releases will
> always be as a "bouquet" of X packages (currently 4)
> and all having the same version number?
> ie.
> will shorewall x.x.x
> always include
> shorewall{-common,-shell,-perl,-lite,-etc...}-x.x.x
That is an excellent question. It is one that I've been
asking myself.
>
> My doubt is whether there's a chance (I'd rather hope
> not) that eg. shorewall-common-4.6.2 is released but,
> say, shorewall-shell-4.6.2 is not because one can keep
> using, say, shorewall-shell-4.6.0.
So you are in favor of releasing all packages with
each Shorewall release?
>
> Until now, the various shorewall packages have always
> been released together with the same version number.
> Is that going to stay the same in the fairly far
> future?
The advantage of releasing the packages separately on
their own schedule is that we end up with fewer total
packages to support. The downside is the never-ending
confusion that users will have about what works with
what.
>
> As a side question, would the mailing list support
> reports of users using shorewall-{subpackage} with
> different version numbers (mainly referring to
> shorewall-common, -shell and -perl)?
The two compiler packages are dependent on shorewall-common.
So the real issue is whether the compiler being used is
compatible with the version of shorewall-common installed.
Because of the way that Shorewall shell library versioning
works, the compilers require a minimum library version in
order for the compiled script to run. That dependency is
currently enforced when the script is run. In principle, we
could support combinations where the installed
shorewall-common was "sufficiently new", even if it wasn't
the latest one. We would probably want to enforce that at
compile time.
Such version dependencies are easy to express using a package
manager like rpm or dkpg. They are not so easy with the
simple-minded install scripts included with the Shorewall
tarballs because there is a chicken-egg problem:
a) shorewall-common requires at least one of the compilers.
b) each compiler requires shorewall-common of at least a
particular version.
Which package do we install first? As things stand right now,
we install the compiler first and the shorewall-common
install script insists that there be a compiler. That means
that if the shorewall-common is too old for the installed
compiler(s), we won't know about it until the first time
that a compiler is run.
Any one else have an opinion about this issue?
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
