... Ubuntu / Canonical developers & users https://launchpad.net/ufw
Thanks for your effort to port it to Salix.
who's using ufw in Salix, I mean.
So they can test the package. If it works, I'll submit it for inclusion in the Salix repo. It's because my package install all the code in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/gufw while the original .deb package installs the same stuff in /usr/share/gufw (a strange location for executable files). It ran, but as I don't have ufw installed (yet) I'm a little unsure if the firewall will work or not. I had to 'trust' the code.
By the way, does anybody know why Gufw is distributed only as a .deb package?
/usr/share/<name> is a good place to store platform-independent stuff like as there is often with python or java or other framework related languages.
/usr/lib/site-packages and /usr/lib64/site-packages is somehow strange but due to the fact that there is a rule to difference between 32 bits and 64 bits libraries and similiar things that are considered as "pseudo libraries".
lmello wrote:By the way, does anybody know why Gufw is distributed only as a .deb package?
Ask Canonical, launchpad belongs to this company.
Use maybe the alien tool to convert deb into tgz.
damNageHack wrote:/usr/share/<name> is a good place to store platform-independent stuff like as there is often with python or java or other framework related languages.
/usr/lib/site-packages and /usr/lib64/site-packages is somehow strange but due to the fact that there is a rule to difference between 32 bits and 64 bits libraries and similiar things that are considered as "pseudo libraries".
lmello wrote:By the way, does anybody know why Gufw is distributed only as a .deb package?
Ask Canonical, launchpad belongs to this company.
Use maybe the alien tool to convert deb into tgz.
Well, ufw install all python code in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/ufw. Why shouldn't Gufw follow the same logic?
And yes, ufw + gufw is working, iptables -L showed me the "magic". Now all that's left for me to do is a rc.ufw script.