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 circumstances this would be the case. However, we are working with a restrictive license so this become a larger issue. Suggest deferring until license is changed... > Just because MSF2 didn't have a GUI or a webinterface, doesn't mean that > people using version 3 won't want it. Then again, are really the ones > who should make that decision? I do not believe so. msf2 did has a GUI as well :-) It just wasn't as easy to use as it is today. I use both the cli and gui, depending on how lazy I am and if I am screening the session, etc. Sometimes for n00bs, a GUI helps them learn enough that they can feel comfortable with the cli at a later point... > But do we really want a metaspolit-core, metasploit-gui, and metasploit- > web. I do see a benifit, as dependencies would be diffrent etc. And I > for one rearly use the web interface, and the GUI is far from mature. > > But then enters the legality issue. Can we really split the package up? > That would require upstream approval, or for them to alter the way they > distribute the package, and I see no benifit for them to do either. Do > you? Yes, there is a benefit, but not at the cost of delaying the package inclusion and/or dealing with license issues... > Last but I am sure not least, updates. Metasploit is updated with SVN, > which would replace the missing files, so the first time the user > updates his metaspolit installation (core) he ends up with the same > thing he would have gotten with -web and -gui. Where is the point in > that? This is the best point to have been made. It makes no sense to break it up if you will pull the files right back in :-) > Of course we could modifiy the package further, and make it only update > part of the package, based on what they install. But all of that would > come far after Gutst, and be more likely after Metasploit LLC releases a > license change, which is in the works. > > So, I do agree, that split packages could be benifitial, however, I do > not this that should be the focus of this release. Instead, I think a > solid package from SVN with all compoents is in order. Agreed, so please include the dependencies for the web interface as well as I have listed. This will be great. 10 days left to cut off :-) -- Kristian Erik Hermansen -- [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
