Ubuntu

Bug #102212
Comment #83

Comment 83 for bug 102212

Revision history for this message

Justin M. Wray (wray-justin) wrote on 2007-08-20: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0

#83

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Thanks,
Justin M. Wray

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristian Hermansen <email address hidden>

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:22
To:<email address hidden>
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0

On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <email address hidden> 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? I think the web interface is a huge
part of msf3, especially for people who will be using it on Ubuntu.
If we left that out, it would be a major detriment. Otherwise, we
would need th same package in the repos twice (metasploit3 and
metasploit3-web)...

> Are you a kind of pedantic guy? svn stay for nickname of subversion ;)

I just wanted to make sure the package name was termed correctly. If
you make the package RECOMMEND 'svn' apt will not resolve this
package, as it is not valid. svn is the command name and not the
package name. Yes, pedantics are my specialty :-p
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen

--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Thanks,
Justin M. Wray

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristian Hermansen <kristian.hermansen@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:22 
To:wray.justin.ubuntu@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0

On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <alessandro@tanasi.it> 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?  I think the web interface is a huge
part of msf3, especially for people who will be using it on Ubuntu.
If we left that out, it would be a major detriment. Otherwise, we
would need th same package in the repos twice (metasploit3 and
metasploit3-web)...

> Are you a kind of pedantic guy? svn stay for nickname of subversion ;)

I just wanted to make sure the package name was termed correctly.  If
you make the package RECOMMEND 'svn' apt will not resolve this
package, as it is not valid.  svn is the command name and not the
package name.  Yes, pedantics are my specialty :-p
-- 
Kristian Erik Hermansen

-- 
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.