Hello all,
I bring this to the list being that the issue isn't necessarily a bug,
rather a concern about implementation. Per the documentation [http://www.fail2ban.org/wiki/index.php/MANUAL_0_8
] fail2ban is _capable_ of supporting shorewall (among other things)
and even states that "the following software is optional but
recommended" with reference to shorewall. However, fail2ban does not
_require_ shorewall to function.
That said, having a 'Requires: shorewall' in the fail2ban spec seems
unnecessary and in my opinion improper. Breaking the package out into
a sub package doesn't seem necessary either... being that the only
file(s) I see that could be split off would be:
]# rpm -ql fail2ban | grep shorewall
/etc/fail2ban/action.d/shorewall.conf
Regardless, for the sake of those that have no interest in shorewall
(and in particular those that want to avoid having to support
shorewall) I'd like to suggest that fail2ban-shorewall be broken off
in a sub-package so that the dependency of shorewall is only enacted
when desired.
Thoughts?
Thank you for your time.
---
derks
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
