Previously I''d been running Shorewall under Fedora cores and thusly using the very nice RPM builds to install the latest versions. The RPMs seem to handle file backup and replacement very nicely, by only saving backups of files which are different than the new versions (.RPMNEW or .RPMSAVE depending). I recently switched over to Debian, and while I''m very happy with the OS, I''m rather disappointed in trying to use the regular Shorewall installer. As I''m sure you''re all aware it creates a .bkout file for every file in the entire Shorewall distribution, every time you do the slightest upgrade. I just upgraded to 2.4.2 today from 2.4.1, and now I have twice as many files as I started with. This is the same thing which occurred when upgrading to 2.4.1 from 2.4.0...every time, every single file is duplicated with a backup. I mean is it really necessary to produce backups of all the Action files every time I want to update? They''re exactly the same 98% of the time. It''s then quite maddening to have to manually grep every single file to see which ones changed and which didn''t. With the RPMs it''s nice and elegant, if there''s a .RPMSAVE file I know the file changed between versions...if there isn''t I know it''s the same and I can ignore it. Would it really be so hard to have the install script only back up changed files? - Matt ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
Matt LaPlante wrote:> Previously I''d been running Shorewall under Fedora cores and thusly using > the very nice RPM builds to install the latest versions. The RPMs seem to > handle file backup and replacement very nicely, by only saving backups of > files which are different than the new versions (.RPMNEW or .RPMSAVE > depending). I recently switched over to Debian, and while I''m very happy > with the OS, I''m rather disappointed in trying to use the regular Shorewall > installer.Then why don''t you use the .deb? Current Shorewall releases are available in the Testing Debian branch. The Shorewall Debian maintainer is prompt at making the latest releases available. The "regular" installer is primarily a tool for use in building packages. The only time you should need to use it directly is if you are running a distribution that doesn''t support either rpm or dpkg/apt-get. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Tom Eastep wrote:> ... >>I recently switched over to Debian, and while I''m very happy >>with the OS, I''m rather disappointed in trying to use the regular Shorewall >>installer. > > > Then why don''t you use the .deb? Current Shorewall releases are available in > the Testing Debian branch. The Shorewall Debian maintainer is prompt at > making the latest releases available.I second this - i''m a Debian user, and i''ve been quite happy with the way the Debian packages work. I''ve been discussing with Lorenzo (the maintainer) how we can make his job easier, so i expect the Debian package to only get better. I''m also working on Debian autobuilds from CVS HEAD - my hope is that we''ll soon have automatic nightly builds of this available for people to test (note TEST, not "rely on for all your production servers" ;-). -- Paul <http://paulgear.webhop.net> -- Did you know? If you receive a virus warning from a friend and not through a virus software vendor, it''s likely to be a hoax. See <http://gear.dyndns.org:81/features/virus_hoaxes> for more info.
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 03:16 -0400, Matt LaPlante wrote:> Previously I''d been running Shorewall under Fedora cores and thusly using > the very nice RPM builds to install the latest versions. The RPMs seem to > handle file backup and replacement very nicely, by only saving backups of > files which are different than the new versions (.RPMNEW or .RPMSAVE > depending). I recently switched over to Debian, and while I''m very happy > with the OS, I''m rather disappointed in trying to use the regular Shorewall > installer. As I''m sure you''re all aware it creates a .bkout file for every > file in the entire Shorewall distribution, every time you do the slightest > upgrade. I just upgraded to 2.4.2 today from 2.4.1, and now I have twice as > many files as I started with. This is the same thing which occurred when > upgrading to 2.4.1 from 2.4.0...every time, every single file is duplicated > with a backup. I mean is it really necessary to produce backups of all the > Action files every time I want to update? They''re exactly the same 98% of > the time. It''s then quite maddening to have to manually grep every single > file to see which ones changed and which didn''t. With the RPMs it''s nice > and elegant, if there''s a .RPMSAVE file I know the file changed between > versions...if there isn''t I know it''s the same and I can ignore it. Would > it really be so hard to have the install script only back up changed files? > > - > MattIf it''s so annoying, why don''t you just change the Installer so it behaves like the RPM sctips (shouldn''t be that hard, you''re right), and submit it to csv? We''re def. happy to take a patch on that. Or, as the others pointed out, just use .deb. Works great, i can second that too. Patrick --