Hello Guys,
Anybody is working on GNS 3 http://www.gns3.net because if not i like to start working on it to build the rpm for it.
Regards, Adrian.-
Hi.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:08:09 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote
Anybody is working on GNS 3 http://www.gns3.net because if not i like to start working on it to build the rpm for it.
I think that might run afoul of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_u...
While GSN3 itself does not require said bits, it's basically just a frontend for programs that do.
Other RPM's/spec's are out there for different RPM based distros, of varying quality, most not quite Fedora compatible,
These are what I've fiddled with/created and am currently using for FC16/x86_64,
http://www.routedlogic.net/files/gns3.spec http://www.routedlogic.net/files/gns3-0.8.2-1.1.src.rpm http://www.routedlogic.net/files/dynamips.spec http://www.routedlogic.net/files/dynamips-0.2.8.RC3-1.fc16.src.rpm
-Colin
On 14 May 2012 06:34, Ralf Ertzinger fedora@camperquake.de wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:08:09 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote
Anybody is working on GNS 3 http://www.gns3.net because if not i like to start working on it to build the rpm for it.
I think that might run afoul of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_u...
While GSN3 itself does not require said bits, it's basically just a frontend for programs that do.
-- Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs. -- Larry Wall (PERL god) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 15/05/12 07:21, Colin Stubbs wrote:
These are what I've fiddled with/created and am currently using for FC16/x86_64,
...
You might want to add the patch for multiple idlepc values. This makes a big difference in practice.
As far as Fedora's policy "Packages which are not useful without external bits" note that there are repositories such as rpmfusion with less strict inclusion criteria. Perhaps your package would be happier there, whilst still making it easy for Fedora users to install GNS3.
Note that Cisco is not the world's only networking vendor and some other vendors make their software available as a VM image for evaluation and learning. You might add the ready availability of learning platforms to the Request for Tender the next time you make a major networking purchase.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 08:25:48 +0930 Glen Turner gdt@gdt.id.au wrote:
On 15/05/12 07:21, Colin Stubbs wrote:
These are what I've fiddled with/created and am currently using for FC16/x86_64,
...
You might want to add the patch for multiple idlepc values. This makes a big difference in practice.
As far as Fedora's policy "Packages which are not useful without external bits" note that there are repositories such as rpmfusion with less strict inclusion criteria. Perhaps your package would be happier there, whilst still making it easy for Fedora users to install GNS3.
...snip...
Some might say this has already happened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510464
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718
kevin
Hi.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 08:25:48 +0930, Glen Turner wrote
Note that Cisco is not the world's only networking vendor and some other vendors make their software available as a VM image for evaluation and learning. You might add the ready availability of learning platforms to the Request for Tender the next time you make a major networking purchase.
And the images of a different vendor can be used with qemu, which is already in Fedora.
None of which is helpful if one wants to specifically use Cisco software in emulation, I agree.