Jim Maul wrote: > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > Bret Miller wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gary Funck wrote: > > > > > > Has anyone considered also supplying new rules in the > > > > > > form of rpm's available via a yum-compatible repository? > > > > > > It'd be nice to have the usual versioning and logging > > > > > > support as well as a central update facility. This > > > > > > could be done as a gateway to sa-update, perhaps > > > > > > providing the updates in other package formats as well. > > > > > This is purely a philosophical argument, but something seems > > > > > wrong about the idea of using a package manager to manage > > > > > volatile data files in /var. > > > > It also has the same problems as sa-update. It's not very > > > > useful unless you have one package/channel per ruleset and that > > > > is a bit excessive considering that a ruleset is just a single > > > > file. > > > > > > > > > From my perspective, RDJ does a great job of handling the > > > > > add-on > > > > rulesets. It's simple and flexible. Why fix something that > > > > isn't broken? > > > RDJ doesn't work in native Windows. Sa-update does. In my mind, > > > that makes RDJ *broken* if you're running Windows. > > > > RDJ is a bash script. It was written to run on the *nix systems > > that most people use for SA. > > > > It shouldn't be that difficult to create a version that works on > > Windows. My approach would be to port it to Perl and use LWP to do > > the file transfers. > > > > I think everyone is missing the point here. This isnt a discussion > about porting RDJ to windows or even about RDJ itself. > > SA now has an application that is similar to RDJ in its function. > This is an offical part of SA and not an unsupported (by the SA team) > add on. The "if it aint broken, why fix it" argument doesnt apply > here as its now being included with SA itself. Its like saying hey > look cars now come with seatbelts direct from the factory but im > going to rip them out and install someone elses. Theres just no > point to it. sa-update can be used to (among other things) replace > RDJ. It runs on windows an *nix. Why would anyone spend their time > even further developing RDJ, nevermind porting it to another OS when > SA now has the same functionality built in?
It doesn't really matter to me who supports which pieces as long as they all work. Someone may be able to fix sa-update so that it can take over from RDJ, but as of now, that is not possible without configuring about 62 sa-update channels (one for each ruleset RDJ manages). -- Bowie
