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

Reply via email to