[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FWbuilder 2.0.10 on Sarge

As the one that actually maintains Fwbuilder for Debian, I can say up until Sarge went stable I had provided backports for Woody (previous stable version) for this reason. However, after some issues with the Debian.org host I had the backports available on (via apt even) I never bothered to set it back up as it didn't appear to be used.

Right now I'm trying to work on improving the package build environment a lil more to make it easier for me to get the new releases out quicker. Currently I only have 2.0.9 uploaded for Testing/Unstable.

If there is indeed a desire for backports I may work on setting that back up as I already use a chroot to build the packages and setting up a stable chroot to build in will be easy enough.


Jan Bakuwel wrote:

Hoi all,

Not sure if I'm using the right list... no doubt someone will tell me if
I didn't :-)

Although I (think I) understand the Debian policies with regard to
stable, testing and unstable, I find myself caught as I prefer to have
stability over having the latest software. I ran into one exception
though (so far), which is FWbuilder. I use it to maintain a number of
firewalls. The latest releases have been mainly if not only bugfixes,
some of them important bugfixes (I prefer not to have bugs in my firewall!).

My dillema is: I'd very much like to stick with Debian Sarge while also
being able to keep up with an important tool I use for generating
firewall scripts. I also very much like to stick with the Debian package
management system (one of the reasons for the rock solid stability of

Is there anyone out there than can help me with with a few suggestions
how I can easily create a backport of FWbuilder for Sarge (so I can
install it on other Sarge systems as well)? I've spend a day trying to
work it out (as FWbuilder is split up in a number of packages; the
compilation process gets stuck if it can't find the libfwbuilder files

Any help is much appreciated.


Reply to: