2012/12/12 Jan-Oliver Wagner <jan-oliver.wag...@greenbone.net>: > Hello, > > coming back to the neglected, yet important, issue of > "Subdirectories for scripts" as discssed on the openvas-plugins mailing list > I have transferred the discussion results into a Change Request: > > http://www.openvas.org/openvas-cr-60.html > > I am calling directly for a vote because on the one hand it > was enough time to provide feedback since the discussions in > February/October and on the other hand, starting with January 1st 2013 > would be a very nice opportunity. > > Of course any comments are welcome and improvements to this > concept appreciated. > > Best > > Jan > Hello,
I'm in favor of such a change, provided the exceptions mentioned in the CR. I have a question though. I'm wondering whether this hierarchy should be made visible to the scripts. In other words, which rules do we want for include/dependencies? My opinion is that exporting a single, flat, namespace in the scanner (actually it's not totally already) would be better. If not, common dependencies (like toolcheck) should be kept in the root tree and libraries (.inc) should be moved to a lib/ directory or something. Beside this, that's +1 for me. Regards -- Henri _______________________________________________ Openvas-devel mailing list Openvas-devel@wald.intevation.org https://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
