Comment 87 for bug 102212

I never noticed that msf2 had a GUI, then again I am much more of a CLI guy.

Anyhow, I agree, we will add all depends, submit to Gutsy, and deal with the ideal situations down the road when they are possible.

Thanks,
Justin M. Wray

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristian Hermansen <email address hidden>

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:38:54
To:<email address hidden>
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0

On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <email address hidden> wrote:
> Okay, so in general, I would agree that an application that doesn,t
> normall have a web feature, should seperated.
>
> I would also apply this rule to a GUI interface.
>
> But where do we draw the line?

Yes, I also agree that under ideal circumstances this would be the
case. However, we are working with a restrictive license so this
become a larger issue. Suggest deferring until license is changed...

> Just because MSF2 didn't have a GUI or a webinterface, doesn't mean that
> people using version 3 won't want it. Then again, are really the ones
> who should make that decision? I do not believe so.

msf2 did has a GUI as well :-) It just wasn't as easy to use as it is
today. I use both the cli and gui, depending on how lazy I am and if
I am screening the session, etc. Sometimes for n00bs, a GUI helps
them learn enough that they can feel comfortable with the cli at a
later point...

> But do we really want a metaspolit-core, metasploit-gui, and metasploit-
> web. I do see a benifit, as dependencies would be diffrent etc. And I
> for one rearly use the web interface, and the GUI is far from mature.
>
> But then enters the legality issue. Can we really split the package up?
> That would require upstream approval, or for them to alter the way they
> distribute the package, and I see no benifit for them to do either. Do
> you?

Yes, there is a benefit, but not at the cost of delaying the package
inclusion and/or dealing with license issues...

> Last but I am sure not least, updates. Metasploit is updated with SVN,
> which would replace the missing files, so the first time the user
> updates his metaspolit installation (core) he ends up with the same
> thing he would have gotten with -web and -gui. Where is the point in
> that?

This is the best point to have been made. It makes no sense to break
it up if you will pull the files right back in :-)

> Of course we could modifiy the package further, and make it only update
> part of the package, based on what they install. But all of that would
> come far after Gutst, and be more likely after Metasploit LLC releases a
> license change, which is in the works.
>
> So, I do agree, that split packages could be benifitial, however, I do
> not this that should be the focus of this release. Instead, I think a
> solid package from SVN with all compoents is in order.

Agreed, so please include the dependencies for the web interface as
well as I have listed. This will be great. 10 days left to cut off
:-)
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen

--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.