> I've renamed it PREFIX.
>
Thanks!
>>>>> LIBEXECDIR (Req'd) -- Directory where product executables are
>>>>> installed. Normally /usr/share or
>>>>> /usr/libexec.
>>>>>
> This was at the insistence of the Fedora maintainer.
I am sure he can read what has been posted and answer/take part in the
discussion as appropriate.
> The Fedora release
> police dislike executables in /usr/share and prefer for them to go into
> /usr/libexec.
>
I may be mistaken, but from what I remember in the early versions of
shorewall I think those files used to be in the perl directory, wasn't
that the case?
>
>>> Some packages have a file called sysconfig that must be installed in the
>>> SYSCONFIG directory as ${SYSCONFIG}/$PRODUCT. That is why this variable is
>>> needed.
>>>
>>>
>> I have no problems with SYSCONFIG as such - the name of the file you
>> choose to put in that rc file (sysconfig) is different from the actual
>> name advertised ($PRODUCT). I think it should be $PRODUCT, not "sysconfig".
>>
>
> That would create a name collision since most packages already have a
> file called $PRODUCT which gets installed in $SBINDIR.
>
You've lost me! In that Fedora rc file, you have
"SYSCONFFILE=sysconfig", which gets installed in $SYSCONFDIR, so the
whole file name, including the path is /etc/sysconfig/sysconfig (made of
$SYSCONFDIR/$SYSCONFFILE), which I think is wrong - it should be
/etc/sysconfig/shorewall, hence my suggestion "SYSCONFFILE=$PRODUCT".
>> Another thing I spotted yesterday was that you have a lot of
>> inconsistent use of "$PRODUCT" and "shorewall" hard-coded as part of
>> directory setup in your scripts - I'll look into this further today.
>>
>
> Both Shorewall-core and Shorewall install files into $SHAREDIR/shorewall.
>
Any reason for that?
>> This can't be right! I have "/var/lib/shorewallundo_rfc1918_routing"
>> (note tha absence of "/" between "shorewall" and
>> "undo_rfc1918_routing"). This file is zero sized. I have no qualms with
>> "/var/lib/shorewall/undo_rfc1918_routing" - that is perfectly legitimate
>> and I know what it could be used for, but the existence of the former is
>> a mistake, I think.
>>
>
> Indeed. Will be corrected in Beta 4.
>
Are you going ahead with Beta4 or do you need additional feedback from
me? To be honest, I haven't properly looked at the install/uninstall
files of all packages yet, so I am not able to judge these one way or
another...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
