Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use LSB configuration variant by default #2349

Open
kamil-certat opened this issue Apr 4, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

Use LSB configuration variant by default #2349

kamil-certat opened this issue Apr 4, 2023 · 7 comments
Milestone

Comments

@kamil-certat
Copy link
Contributor

The debian package, what is our main distribution format, patches IntelMQ source code to force LSB (/etc/intelmq) paths: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/tree/develop/debian/patches

It looks like we're also recommending those paths in our documentation. I'd like to propose to move them as default configuration variant (probably in IntelMQ 4).

@gethvi
Copy link
Contributor

gethvi commented Apr 4, 2023

Yes please!

@sebix
Copy link
Member

sebix commented Apr 4, 2023

Do you intend to keep the INTELMQ_ROOT variable to allow (multiple) installations in /opt?

@kamil-certat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Of course, I just want to apply the patch https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/develop/debian/patches/fix-intelmq-paths.patch in the main code – without any other changes. The control through the environment variable is really useful, and I use it for my development environment. I just find it useful, if the default path would play together with what we recommend and say in docs.

@sebix
Copy link
Member

sebix commented Apr 5, 2023

You may also ask on the mailing list for more opinions from the community and the users/devs.

The documentation and default configuration need adaptions too.

@kamil-certat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Mail sent 👌

@kamil-certat
Copy link
Contributor Author

No responses in the mailing list, positive reactions to the issue - I think we could go with it, right?

@sebix
Copy link
Member

sebix commented Apr 24, 2023

Yes, I agree. Let's go for it

@gethvi gethvi added this to the 4.0.0 milestone Feb 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants