Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reverse the order of searching for packer-io, otherwise on Fedora/Red… #53

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 10, 2017
Merged

Reverse the order of searching for packer-io, otherwise on Fedora/Red… #53

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 10, 2017

Conversation

malwarenights
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,
the patch 0e0255f is not working properly on the Fedora/Redhat/Centos, because it always picks the colliding packer from the cracklib package.

I would recommend to reverse the order of searching for packer starting with more specific 'packer-io' and then fallback to 'packer'.

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

…Hat/Centos

and others the first binary found ('packer') will be always the wrong one from
cracklib package having colliding name
@Svieg
Copy link
Collaborator

Svieg commented May 17, 2017

I agree with reversing the order of the search for packer-io/packer but not sure for the env var thoug. @obilodeau thoughts?

@malwarenights
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should I resubmit without the var?
I mean - The order of the binaries is real deal-breaker for Fedora/RedHat as the cracklib is installed with its "packer" and without this simple patch the wrong one is taken all the time.

The env var is beneficial, as default on Fedora islibvirt and there is currently no other option than virtualbox in the malbox vagrant boxes so having the explicit preference to virtualbox in the vagrant configuration actually makes sence. If you decide not wanting this one ... it is possible to change the preferece of the default in user's profile or pass on commandline.

Mik

@Svieg
Copy link
Collaborator

Svieg commented May 23, 2017

I think I'd personally prefer that the env var would be templated and default it to virtualbox. What do you think? I'm pretty sure that's what you meant in your last paragraph. Thx!

@malwarenights
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes I personally preffer to have it in the template, if the template is currently meant to run only in virtualbox.
Mik

@obilodeau obilodeau merged commit de2dcf8 into GoSecure:master Jul 10, 2017
@obilodeau
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your contribution! Sorry for the wait.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants