Re: [Bastille-linux-discuss] bastille-firewall-early.sh, B_place, 'rpm -e' again

[Jay B. <ja...@ba...>]

In the wise words of Peter W:

> It's mostly minor, yes, but I htink this raises the old 'rpm -e' question 
> again. Comments follow.
> 
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 12:07:00PM -0400, James W. Durkin wrote:
> 
> > I believe there is a (relatively) small problem in the current version
> > of the main Bastille RPM.
> > 
> > The file "bastille-firewall-early.sh" is placed directly into
> > /etc/Bastille rather than into /usr/share/Bastille, as is the case
> > with the other firewall files (e.g., "bastille-firewall").  The result
> > is that the following code in Firewall.pm fails
> 
> Jay? I think this one is yours! IIRC, Jay changed this for Mandrake users, 
> something about their "tinyfirewall" package... I forget exactly what/why.

Right.  So, I don't think this was to make tinyfirewall work.  It looks like 
an oversight on my part that happened to slip by because it didn't "break" 
anything during testing.  This is where I remind myself that code audits 
are good things.  (We'll begin a formalized one shortly after 1.2.0 is out.)

> > I guess the permissions on the copied file ($firewall_early_file)
> > might want to be 0500 as well, since it is a script.
> 
> The problem this does raise is that the "early" script may be improperly 
> vaporized if someone removes the Bastille package. Wehad a long thread 
> about this a while back, but I haven't looked at recent spec files to see 
> if Jay implemented the pre-uninstall and post-uninstall routines needed to 
> ensure that would not happen. Jay?

I don't really remember this, but I'll make sure we get this into the spec
file and rebuild the rpm.


 - Jay