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 >> need. >> >> 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 > libcaf > 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. Johanna _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev