You have some errors between LGPL and GPLv2. I've tried to look into
source code and README and LICENSE files.
This is what I could come up with:
Metasploit framework: 3-clause BSD
I have looked into:
1) lib directory
2) external directory
"N/A" means "No license found", I suppose those follow t
Hi Daniel,
On Nov 25, 2007 11:04 PM, Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody followed up on the lintian/linda errors on:
> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?package=metasploit
I submitted patches to H.D. Moore and the Metasploit team to fix many
of the errors. However, they decided th
I agree with everything you mentioned here, especially braking up the
packages. I am actually glad that Ubuntu is rejecting it :-) it
shows me that people care about what packages make it into the
repositories and results in a high quality system for the users. I am
a long time user since Warty
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Changed in: ubuntu
>Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
I just updated my Gutsy install, but I don't see it. Has it made it
into multiverse yet? This is the last day. Do you want me to get on
#ubuntu-motu and coordinate this wi
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not yet, I have uploaded to my PPA, (not sure the status of that system
> yet). I will upload to REVU now...time to face the fire.
I know some of the packaging people at Canonical/Ubuntu. If they give
you a hard time, mention Kristian Erik
So is it officially in Gutsy now? Can I "sudo aptitude update && sudo
aptitude install metasploit3" ??
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubun
On 8/21/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pulled the latest snapshot from (Rev:5080), however all of the
> permission issues are still present.
The permissions issues are able to be modified, and do not fall under
the relevant source code changes policy. They did fix the ruby files
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:38:54
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so in general, I would agree that an appli
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and i am pedantic. So i say, that line is a comment, no a control
> file line, so i think i can use a friendly alias.
> And now, like pedantic guys, i think we need a huge beer.
Let's all hang out and grab some beers at the next secur
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so in general, I would agree that an application that doesn,t
> normall have a web feature, should seperated.
>
> I would also apply this rule to a GUI interface.
>
> But where do we draw the line?
Yes, I also agree that under ideal cir
Kristian Hermansen wrote:
> So, if we can't modify the package, does that mean that you want the
> same package in repositories twice, one with the web interface
> dependencies, and on without? I think the web interface is a huge
> part of msf3, especially for people who will be using it on Ubuntu
of this release. Instead, I think a
solid package from SVN with all compoents is in order.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:22
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider to deploy a separate package with web interface, in my packages.
So, if we can't modify the package, does that mean that you want the
same package in repositories twice, one with the web interface
dependencies, and on without?
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first metaspoilt 3 package that i do when i open this bug have the
> following:
>
> Depends: ruby, libruby, rdoc, libyaml-ruby, libzlib-ruby, libopenssl-
> ruby, libdl-ruby, libreadline-ruby, libiconv-ruby, libgtk2-ruby,
> libglade2-rub
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll be packaging tonight, and will place the package online for testing
> etc.
>
> Let me know if you are interested in testing.
Great! Sure, I will test it. I think we should make the 'subversion'
package a RECOMMENDS. What do you think?
On 8/17/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kristian, I know you have been "attempting" to speak with the MSF Dev's.
> Any chance they will apply the patches upstream? Alessandro is right,
> it would make things a lot easier, because then we would have no need to
> edit the source.
hd
On 8/16/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that we need a law expert, and as i say in the first posts of
> this bug the only easy way is that the msf dev team start to distribute
> good archive.
Yes ok, but that law does not come into play unless the package is
modified, ri
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are right, and none of us (as far as I know) are lawyers, nor Dev's
> for MSF. But it is clear to me that modifications are allowed, and they
> would result in a cleaner package. Just throwing everything together,
> without fixing the cu
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's break down the License, and see where we fall.
OK. So let's do this. Will msf3 work unmodified? And will Ubuntu
allow msf3 to slip in unmodified into multiverse? If so, I say we
just add it to Gutsy ASAP and then worry about cleanin
On 8/16/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello guys,
> i was away this days for the CCCamp.
I heard it was a good time from my hackers on a plane friends :-)
> I see that you done a good work, but remember that tha msf sources can't
> modified.
> So you can't apply any sort of
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, well, we should be good to go, I was able to integrate the needed
> permission changes into the build. The Ruby patch applies as well.
Excellent.
> Any other needed changes?
Not that I can think of!
> I'll post linda/lintian without
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so I got it working, sort of.
>
> I am now getting an error from you function, looking into this.
Post the output?
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You re
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there is a build function to do this, I just need to find it
Let me know if you find it...
> I am on the road, will be back on the PC in 45.
No problem. I just got back from the BeanSec security meetup in
Boston. Fun times...
--
iginal Message-
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:31:10
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, I made a diff, after running your
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, I made a diff, after running your script, thats the RUBY patch
> above.
Of course :-) I saw that...
> However, 'diff' doesn't catch the change in file permissions etc.
Yup!
> Therefore, within the debian/rules I used part of your s
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When packaging you cannot modify the source package at all, other then
> through patches.
>
> As such I added the patch to the debian/rules. Let me check something.
My file is a shell script, not a patch made with diff. And I made the
scrip
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:09:13
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you post the warning messages?
>
> W: metasploit; Executable
> /usr/local/metasploi
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you post the warning messages?
>
> W: metasploit; Executable
> /usr/local/metasploit/framework-3.0/external/source/meterpreter/source/extensions/stdapi/server/net/net.h
> with perms 0755 is not an ELF file or script.
>
> Seems this should
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Ruby issue has been resolved, but the scripts method for determining
> the correct permissions only partial worked. We still have plenty of
> permissions issues. So we need to decide how we will proceed with
> those.
Can you post the wa
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the diff patch to correct Ruby paths...
>
> ** Attachment added: "Ruby Path Correction (diff/patch)"
>http://launchpadlibrarian.net/8841542/ruby.patch
Great! So is it ready to be uploaded for Gutsy??? :-)
--
Kristian Erik Herman
:31:45
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E: metasploit: wrong-path-for-ruby ./usr/share/metasploit/external
> /ruby-pcapx/examples/tcpdump.rb #!/usr/local/bin/ruby
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E: metasploit: wrong-path-for-ruby ./usr/share/metasploit/external
> /ruby-pcapx/examples/tcpdump.rb #!/usr/local/bin/ruby
>
> Your script does _NOT_ seem to fix this error. However, I do not get
> that output with or without your patch.
I
IL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:33:04
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when I
> started wo
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when I
> started working on MSF), and was told, it is not against policy, just frowned
> upon. The problem, without the SVN updates, the user would be unable to pull
> the
On 8/14/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I too have a packaged version, from the unmodified metasploit release,
> it is more then possible to build the deb with the SVN, as SVN is used
> to update the exploits, and other framework modules. May not be the
> ideal build, but can work.
On 7/22/07, Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, let's go for option two. How about you whip up a script to make
> the changes you propose, so that all the MSF devs need to do is run
> it, and then we have the package just as we want. How does that
> sound? Do you want to write it
On 7/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only 2 options that i see to get metasploit in ubuntu are:
> 1) that we have a special agreement to package it, modifing metasploit
> license (hard to do)
> 2) that dev team release a new version debianization friendly (i think easy
>
On 7/19/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When the author release the new tar.gz i upload the deb that i have ready.
> I think that the first thing is that the author make a new tar.gz
So you want the metasploit dev team to release a new tar.gz with the
changes you requested previ
On 7/18/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds great!
>
> The todo list is:
These seem relatively easy. How are we building the package after the
changes are made. If you give me the steps, I can make one on my
amd64 box, but it shouldn't really matter in this case, since this
On 7/14/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, great!
> But before write my first comment here i talk with a couple of motu in
> #ubuntu-motu, they thinks that metasploit cant be in ubuntu, but if the
> author write this, he know sure the license better :)
> The problem is that t
On 7/14/07, H D Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The license does allow for packaging, provided that the software is not
> modified and is not sold for a value above the cost of distribution. A
> number of free software distributions include Metasploit 3 in
> the "non-free" trees.
Thanks for cla
On 7/14/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NO!
> It's released under Metasploit Framework license. The OLD Metasploit 2.0 was
> GPL.
> Your simply must, download, unpack, and read the copyright.
I just emailed the developers to see if there is some way we can work
this out. They
42 matches
Mail list logo
