2009/9/18 Jakub Wilk <uba...@users.sf.net>: > * Alan Woodland <awoodl...@debian.org>, 2009-09-17, 19:44: >>> >>> 2) Patch l7-filter-userspace to look into /usr/share/l7-protocols for >>> protocol definitions rather than /etc/l7-protocols. Then l7-protocols >>> could >>> provide no /etc/l7-protocols at all. >> >> This might be a sensible option, although it's a significant deviation >> from what upstream do. There are definitely other packages that take >> this approach. >> >> Would it be possible to make it look in both /etc/l7-protocols (which >> gets installed/created empty by default) *and* >> /usr/share/l7-protocols? That might make sense from a behaviour point >> of view. > > That would be doable but not quite trivial. > > But what should be the semantics of -p option in that case? Should > /usr/share/l7-protocols be always read, or only if -p is not given? > I'd say it should look in /etc/l7-protocols and /usr/share/l7-protocols if there is no -p given and where ever the user specifies if -p is given. That way it's pretty much minimal change from upstream (you could patch the manpage to say the default path is /usr/share... and /etc/...).
I think it'd probably be worth getting a second opinion though on this one really, try asking on debian-de...@lists.debian.org perhaps to see what the collective wisdom is. Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
