[Snort-users] Barnyard2 - v2-1.10 is released
allowoverride at ...11827...
Fri Sep 28 13:44:16 EDT 2012
the pulledpork like /usr/local. snort likes /etc/snort, barnyard2
i am aware of paths and such, i am stating simply, why not have them all
point to the same place. i dont see how that is hard to do. one email to
barnyard, pulledpork, snort, yadda, done. simple.
put it ALL in /etc or put it ALL in /usr/local
done with this topic
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 08:32 -0400, beenph wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:58 AM, AllowOverride <allowoverride at ...11827...> wrote:
> > he configuration is installed by default
> > to /usr/local/etc/barnyard2.conf
> > exactly my point! why /usr/local, why not /etc/snort. /usr/local should
> > be used for stuff that is not a service, but local programs. snort is a
> > daemon, and daemon traditionally go in /etc, freebsd users
> > are /usr/local/etc, cuz ports like putting things there. i guess i
> > should have mentioned im using linux.
> /usr/local is generaly used by default when you build most OSS projects.
> Now you can allways use --prefix=xxx when you execute configure so
> that make install
> copy file where you want them to be.ex: /usr/local/barnyard2
> > aside from where this and that is placed, /usr/local/etc/barnyard2.conf
> > as a location makes no sense to me. it just gets burried, and the vast
> > majority wont find it there until they run a script that says, it can't
> > find such and such, then pulledpork will say, it cant find rules,
> > barnyard2, so forth. sorry this is my only point here.
> Overall predefined default path for a single instance installation
> are fine but as soon as you
> start having multi sensors you will probably want to build custom path
> for configuration and log file which
> will break previous assumptions.
> I would suggest that in your script should be flexible enough
> so it support theses kind of senario.
More information about the Snort-users