On 13 Feb 2018, at 8:36, Seth Hall wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2018, at 11:31, Robin Sommer wrote:
>> We could even go a step further and compile CAF statically into
>> libbroker, so that in the end from a user's perspective all they deal
>> with is Broker: if they link against it, they get everything they
>> Would that make sense?
> I think we're quite a ways off from CAF being generally packaged with
> most operating systems (especially having the correct version to work
> with broker). I think that including it with broker and building
> into libbroker statically makes sense too. I've been concerned about
> the difficulty of building Bro from source too.
I agree - while I see the argument of not packaging external stuff, I
think we should make an exception here.
bro-dev mailing list