I agree with everything you mentioned here, especially braking up the packages. I am actually glad that Ubuntu is rejecting it :-) it shows me that people care about what packages make it into the repositories and results in a high quality system for the users. I am a long time user since Warty :-) So, looks like we need to puch this back to the MSF team so they can clean up their act. They may not even want to, and for that, we can do nothing. So, for myself, I will just continue pulling down sources manually until they work out a new license and/or ways to deal with these issues. They may not care, since it is their tool for their use, and we have the fringe benefit of being able to use it. Oh well...we tried. I won't work on this any more. I'll let you guys take over if you like. The MSF guys don't seen to have time or want to fix these things, at least as far as I can tell. Maybe they do, but they don't care if it makes it into a distro or not...
On 8/29/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I said that .svn dirs must be removed ;) > A package for being accepted must be lintian *clean*, so i think, as i prev > said: > 1) we get a good package from dev team > 2) we get an execption from ubuntu-dev > > Completely agree, we were just trying to see if we could get past this > for the time being. > > I think the best solution is as follows: > > 1) We split metasploit into the following packages - > * metasploit-core (Containing all the core components, including CLI) > * metasploit-web (Containing all of the msfweb files) > * metasploit-gui (Containing all of the msfgui and needed files) > * metasploit-data (Containing all exploits, modules, etc.) > > 2) Offer a way to automatically update the exploits and modules only > (leaving core, web, and gui to be updated in future releases or with > security concerns). Although we need to discuss how this should be > approached, specific SVN, repackaging to the archive, a download script, > etc. > > The problem again, is how to we gain the ability to do such. The > options are MSF distributes the upstream package as we have outlined > above, or they allow an exception to the license that grants Ubuntu the > right to modify the package and distribute in the way stated above. > > But it is a long shot that they would repackage just to please one distro > (even though other distros could benefit from such a release). > Worse it is unlikely any license exception or change will be seen until the > next major release which should be accompanied by a new license. > > Which leaves us hanging without a metasploit release again...feedback? > > I wonder if the MSF team would be willing to create a separate SVN trunk > for Ubuntu specifically, in which they release under the layout above? > > Thanks, > Justin M. Wray > > -- > [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse) > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212 > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber > of the bug. > -- Kristian Erik Hermansen -- [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
