[Honeywall] Welcome!

Earl esammons at hush.com
Thu Jun 28 16:00:42 EDT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Arthur,

The folding of the Fedora Legacy prject pretty much broke tha
camells back as far as using FC as our OS since the lifespan is now
limited to what, 1 year max?

For historical info, I sort of needed to get 1.2 out fast so going
from FC3 (roo-1.0/1.1) to FC6 was the best way to go at the time.
It also had the added bennefit of th efact that RHEL5 which we all
know the CentOS project would pick up and transform into CentOS5
was more/less based on FC6 thus setting up a potential transition
path for roo.

That being said, I did a package availability test a while back
that yielded about 12-18 packages that are in roo but not available
from the CentOS5 branch *at the time*.  I seem to recall them
stating that they are working on stuff that is tipically found in
what used to be called FC extras etc. which is where the  missing
packages come from but have not checked back since then (TODO++).

I think we need to look closely at lib/app/etc versions currently
in CentOS5 and attemptt o determine if we cna live with them for
about 2 years.  If so, see if we have resources available to
maintain any packages that the Honeywall needs that they do not
require.  OR, if we can grab them form a RELIABLE source - without
going through the pain of pulling form multiple repos that we have
no control over...

Thoughts?


Earl


On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:58:41 -0400 Arthur Clune
<arthur at honeynet.org.uk> wrote:
>On 28 Jun 2007, at 05:50, Earl wrote:
>
>> OS related - init handling, packaging, updating, system health,
>etc.
>
>And 'which OS?'. It looks to me that chasing the moving target
>that
>is Fedora creates a lot of work that doesn't add value to the
>cdrom
>itself. Moving to a more stable platform (CentOS is the obvious
>one)
>would be a one-off hit but would give us a more stable base to
>work
>over.
>
>The counter argument to this is the same as it always is for
>'enterprise linux' : if we get to a point where we need more
>recent
>libraries etc. than JoesEnterpriseLinux 1.0 provides, we have to
>move
>on anyway or make such extensive customisations that it negates
>the
>gain.
>
>Just chucking the idea out. I know Earl has talked about this in
>the
>past as something to look out after 1.2.
>
>Arthur
>
>--
>Arthur Clune. UK Honeynet Project. arthur at honeynet.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5

wkYEARECAAYFAkaDyxgACgkQk7+e+4lPSm1xmQCguCGKY67rUrMhZgL/sGMiXVuOFMYA
njZf/vyYBskUdM9QtMWzDnD3IgAi
=5Mnk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Honeywall mailing list