From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 21 15:53:19 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD16106566B for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:53:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=5384dbffd=pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu (ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.112]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6C18FC19 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:53:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Group: RELAYLIST X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,597,1249275600"; d="scan'208";a="18863513" Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu ([129.110.20.110]) by ip-relay-002.utdallas.edu with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2009 10:53:15 -0500 Received: from utd65257.utdallas.edu (utd65257.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 005624EF48; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:53:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:53:15 +0000 From: Paul Schmehl To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <65DDA3431A3A3C82B20A2039@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <20091021113121.fcdb99f5.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <20091021113121.fcdb99f5.wmoran@potentialtech.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Linux/x86) X-Munged-Reply-To: Figure it out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Need advice from maintainers X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:53:19 -0000 --On Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:31:21 -0500 Bill Moran wrote: > > In response to Paul Schmehl : > >> I am the maintainer for security/barnyard2. This is an updated version of >> security/barnyard, which I also maintain. The version of my port is the >> current release version, but it has a really irritating problem that is fixed >> in the current beta version. >> >> Barnyard2 is a program that parses snort logs and inserts them into a >> database (mysql or postgresql). It is supposed to create a placemarker file >> (called a waldo file) that maintains a record of what logs it has already >> parsed. (This is only one way of using the program. There are others as >> well.) The problem in the release version is that it does not read the >> waldo file when the program is restarted. So every time you restart >> barnyard2, it reinserts into the database every alert you still have log >> files for. The beta version fixes this problem. >> >> I have created a port for the beta version and am using it myself, but I know >> that using beta versions of software is frowned upon. Should I go ahead and >> submit this port because it solves this problem? >> >> If I do, my thinking is that I should adjust the pkg-message file in the >> existing port to warn the user about the problem and note that the beta >> version solves it so they might want to consider using that instead. > > An option that you did not mention is to take the patch that fixes that > single problem and include as a patch file for barnyard2. That way it's > not a true beta, it just has that single patch to fix a known problem. > > For me, I think that would be the preferred method in this case. > I *might* be able to do that, if I can figure out where in the code the problem is fixed. I've had two semesters of C++, but I am not a programmer and consider myself the rankest of novices wrt code. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson