On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:11:20PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> 1. People may want to try out different tools, and many tools can be
> disabled in one way or another; so being installed at the same time does not
> imply they are being used at the same time and interfering. A similar issue
> arises for example with display managers. Conficts are the wrong way of
> handling this, because you prohibit users from trying out different tools
> In particular, firewall tools usually need to be configured and will not
> automatically run (as this could lock you out in the worst case).
> 2. They are not necessarily incompatible.
> pyroman generates iptables-restore scripts, because this is much faster to
> load than repeated invocations of iptables.
> But that means it actually makes sense to combine this in particular with
> And I even have a system where I have iptables-persistent installed along
> with pyroman.
> So please do NOT add "conflicts".
> To quote Debian policy:
> > Neither Breaks nor Conflicts should be used unless two packages cannot be
> installed at the same time or installing them both causes one of them to be
> broken or unusable. Having similar functionality or performing the same
> tasks as another package is not sufficient reason to declare Breaks or
> Conflicts with that package.
> At maximum, the solution should be a debconf question asking the user which
> firewall tool to use if multiple are installed, as done for example with
> display managers such as gdm, kdm, lightdm. But since these tools usually
> need to be configured anyway to be useful, I don't see much benefit of doing
> What I can imagine is, however, introducing some indicator that allows one
> tool to detect that another tool is being used at the same time. For
> example, all tools could generate some unused iptable "firewall-tool-name-X"
> and check the presence of such tables as an indicator for possible
> misconfiguration to warn the user.
> On 22.07.19 21:57, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> >This email is regarding an iptables manager on which you are listed as
> >maintainer .
> >I maintain iptables-persistent, a script to setup iptables rules at
> >boot; all of you maintain  a firewall manager.
> >I was working on #926927 when I realize that users can install our
> >packages at the same time, which will surely cause them problems.
> >I think that besides implementing something along the proposed solution
> >to #926927 we should implement package level Conflicts  between our
> >packages. Maybe to make it easier and extendable we should all Provide and
> >with a meta-package (firewall-manager?)
> >what do you guys think?
> > -
> >Package: uruk
> >Maintainer: Joost van Baal-Ilić <[hidden email]>
> >Package: ufw
> >Maintainer: Jamie Strandboge <[hidden email]>
> >Package: uif
> >Maintainer: Mike Gabriel <[hidden email]>
> >Package: sidedoor
> >Maintainer: Dara Adib <[hidden email]>
> >Package: shorewall
> >Maintainer: Roberto C. Sanchez <[hidden email]>
> >Package: pyroman
> >Maintainer: Erich Schubert <[hidden email]>
> >Package: ipkungfu
> >Maintainer: Luis Uribe <[hidden email]>
> >Package: arno-iptables-firewall
> >Maintainer: Debian Security Tools <[hidden email]>
> >Package: ferm
> >Maintainer: Alexander Wirt <[hidden email]>
> >Package: firehol
> >Maintainer: Jerome Benoit <[hidden email]>
> >Package: firewalld
> >Maintainer: Utopia Maintenance Team
> ><[hidden email]>
> >let me know if I missed anybody or any package.
> > - https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html > >