Working with Packages on 2.3 and Converting to Bootstrap
-
Okay, thanks Jim.
Not addressing missing packages yet. The ones we have listed must all be complete first before we can consider expanding that list.
-
Overview of the new pfSense Package port directory structure:
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Package_Port_Directory_StructureLooks great!!!
I've send the first pull request to postfix package. Structure looks extremely easier to port packages to pfsense. Excelent work!!!!!!
-
I've send the first pull request to postfix package.
Still not showing up under Available Packages
-
I've send the first pull request to postfix package.
Still not showing up under Available Packages
it hasn't been merged yet
-
REST will be for 3.0 only and some time off (we haven't even began drafting the API) – Seems like overkill to start all that now when we haven't decided on what we'll be using for any of that.
We'll be on 2.3 for a while, most likely there will even be a 2.4, that blog post is long-term goals.
Maybe a year to an initial release, but yeah.
-
Bind package is needed too..
-
Dear marcelloc and doktornotor, please consider making a independent ClamAV package with default clamav permissions. Its a hell of a ride to make SquidClamAV and Mailscanner run side by side and after each pfSense update all modifications are gone and needs fixing again.
At the moment, I've a working 2.2.6 system with:
Postfix + latest Mailscanner (SA with all modules, DCC pyzor etc.) + SPF marking + ClamD 0.99 (all via pkg install)
Squid + SquidGuard + Squidclamav + c-icap + ClamD 0.99ClamD is running fine, both Squidclamav and Mailscanner use it at the same time without conflicts.
-
I updated another batch of packages, testing is appreciated:
- Backup
- siproxd (status page only)
- FreeRADIUS2 (just needed the config viewer)
- LADVD (status page only)
- OpenBGPD (raw config and status pages)
Of those the most significant one that needs testing is OpenBGPD since I don't have an active BGP connection to test against. Some of the status fields are empty but I'm not certain if it's my lack of working setup or a problem on the page. Feedback is definitely appreciated for that one, and all the rest as well.
-
I pushed updates for Squid, squidGuard, Lightsquid, and some associated fixes in the base system that should at least make things functional for most people. I'll start a fresh thread for those, though.
-
I noticed that ntopng is in the Google Docs list of packages, but when I check on my 2.3 box, it doesn't appear in the list. Just wondering if there's a reason why this is, or if it's just an oversight somewhere.
Thanks! :)
-
@virgiliomi:
I noticed that ntopng is in the Google Docs list of packages, but when I check on my 2.3 box, it doesn't appear in the list. Just wondering if there's a reason why this is, or if it's just an oversight somewhere.
It's a work in progress. In order to accommodate ntopng we have to upgrade to rrdtool 1.4, but to get to that point in the base system we need to revamp our RRD code to work without the graph option so that we can avoid adding a couple hundred MB in dependencies. Once the base system RRD code is reworked then we can add ntopng to the packages.
-
I know that the more popular packages deserve priority but is there actually a defined process for reviewing and making packages available for install through the GUI? If that process exists, is it something that can be published?
My reason for asking is that I'm very much a fan of the postfix package and eager to test it out on 2.3. It would be nice to know its current progress through the process.
A package readiness spreadsheet, like the one that was available for 2.2 (I think), would be really useful. Maybe even shared with and editable by package developers/maintainers, so they could say where they're up to.
-
Look at the ToDo issue in GitHub https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5568
Then you can find the issue for any package that is in the process of conversion (or done).
As people progress on each conversion those issues should be kept up-to-date. -
I know that the more popular packages deserve priority but is there actually a defined process for reviewing and making packages available for install through the GUI? If that process exists, is it something that can be published?
We haven't defined that process yet.
A package readiness spreadsheet, like the one that was available for 2.2 (I think), would be really useful. Maybe even shared with and editable by package developers/maintainers, so they could say where they're up to.
See the first post in this thread, it already has a link to the sheet for 2.3.
-
If anybody could please pick up sarg, that would be great.
-
Bind package is needed too..
I'm happy to help test bind, if required.
At the moment, I'm holding off upgrading to 2.3 as I use bind for DNS. -
can we get LCDproc-dev added to the list of packages that need conversion?
I've spent a few hours looking at all this info, and looking at the code of 2.2.x packages and 2.3 packages and i'm totally lost.
This guy posted instructions on how to manually get it working on 2.3, but we really need a package.
-
please pfsense is 2.3.2 not package postfix & mailscanner. ????????????????????
-
I noticed pfsense has the freebsd ports tree in the git repo, so all these requests for binaries could simply be honoured by allowing people to compile ports on a pfsense box?
-
I noticed pfsense has the freebsd ports tree in the git repo, so all these requests for binaries could simply be honoured by allowing people to compile ports on a pfsense box?
Negative. Putting a compiler environment on a firewall is extremely dangerous.
