News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go. Parent comment

Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go by egberts1 on Monday October 19, 2020 @12:23PM (#24827844)
Fail2ban is a bit shaky when it transitions to Python3.

Hasn’t pass the pylint,?futurize, or 2to3 by much.

But if the maintainers are willing, I can do those things.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go by oefrha on Monday October 19, 2020 @01:46PM (#24828815)
Not sure what you mean by shaky, fail2ban has been working under Python 3 for quite a while. (See for instance fail2ban on Ubuntu 16.04 depending on python3[0].) People definitely would have noticed.

I saw your issue[1] on GitHub, and that's just a misunderstanding of how fail2ban was ported to Python 3. fail2ban uses the use_2to3 feature of setuptools.setup to do automatic translation upon installation.[2] While I do wish the code runs under Python 3 as is, what users actually run is totally working code.

[0] https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/amd64/fail2ban

[1] https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/issues/2853

[2] https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/blob/960e30cfcdae7e2c81...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go by egberts1 on Monday October 19, 2020 @02:06PM (#24829037)
Yes. It may be totally working code.

But it wasn’t written cleanly as many tools would attest.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go by viraptor on Monday October 19, 2020 @05:02PM (#24830988)
Those tools tell you if you comply with some persons style choices, and maybe catch a few potential problems. That says close to nothing about cleanliness or correctness. They're for internal use, not for making external measurements of code.
[ Parent | on HN ]