Re: [Bro-Dev] bro-devel package?

[Jon Siwek]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Vlad Grigorescu  wrote:
> There are a couple of cases where I think it'd be useful to have a bro-devel
> package -- a package that I can install on a system, and then be able to
> build plugins against Bro. (This is the same model as other *-devel
> packages, such as openssl, libpcap, etc.)

Yes, I think it's useful and something that should be done.  It was
fairly low on my list of things to try to do before 2.6.  Related:

https://bro-tracker.atlassian.net/browse/BIT-1922

> I'm curious how people are dealing with this issue, and if anyone has
> thoughts on whether this would be useful, and if so, what it would take to
> build such a package.

My guess as to what needs to be done:

* separate bifcl into its own submodule: I think this should be easy
* install Bro's headers: at least I think that's all that we need to
do on our end, it's also a bit of an open question as to whether we
just install them all for now until we get a more organized API or can
get away with a smaller subset
* update the plugin CMake/configure skeletons and/or bro-config to be
able to make use of the above two points

- Jon
___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

Re: [Bro-Dev] bro-devel package?

[Azoff, Justin S]

> On May 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Vlad Grigorescu  wrote:
> 
> There are a couple of cases where I think it'd be useful to have a bro-devel 
> package -- a package that I can install on a system, and then be able to 
> build plugins against Bro. (This is the same model as other *-devel packages, 
> such as openssl, libpcap, etc.)
> 
> Right now, if I compile Bro from source, run make install, I can't build a 
> package with what's in /usr/local -- Bro needs the entire source tree, since 
> the required headers are not present in /usr/local.
> 
> I'm curious how people are dealing with this issue, and if anyone has 
> thoughts on whether this would be useful, and if so, what it would take to 
> build such a package.
> 

I ran into this issue in two places: on our infrastructure and working out how 
to support bro as a language on travis-ci.

For our installations I worked around it by just building packages that contain 
bro plus all the plugins I need and dump the entire thing into a single RPM.  
This works ok for me, but would never work for something like debian that is 
probably trying to figure out how to package some of the bro plugins.

This also doesn't work for adding bro support for travis.. the OBS RPMs come 
close.. we can install those plus bro-pkg, but any packages that need to be 
built against bro won't compile.


— 
Justin Azoff


___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

Re: [Bro-Dev] bro-devel package?

[Michał Purzyński]

Well that’s s great question!

Right now my spec for building plugins downloads entire bro tree and does some 
cmake plugin to avoid waiting for the tree to build.



> On May 24, 2018, at 9:50 PM, Vlad Grigorescu  wrote:
> 
> There are a couple of cases where I think it'd be useful to have a bro-devel 
> package -- a package that I can install on a system, and then be able to 
> build plugins against Bro. (This is the same model as other *-devel packages, 
> such as openssl, libpcap, etc.)
> 
> Right now, if I compile Bro from source, run make install, I can't build a 
> package with what's in /usr/local -- Bro needs the entire source tree, since 
> the required headers are not present in /usr/local.
> 
> I'm curious how people are dealing with this issue, and if anyone has 
> thoughts on whether this would be useful, and if so, what it would take to 
> build such a package.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   --Vlad
> ___
> bro-dev mailing list
> bro-dev@bro.org
> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

[Bro-Dev] bro-devel package?

[Vlad Grigorescu]

There are a couple of cases where I think it'd be useful to have a
bro-devel package -- a package that I can install on a system, and then be
able to build plugins against Bro. (This is the same model as other *-devel
packages, such as openssl, libpcap, etc.)

Right now, if I compile Bro from source, run make install, I can't build a
package with what's in /usr/local -- Bro needs the entire source tree,
since the required headers are not present in /usr/local.

I'm curious how people are dealing with this issue, and if anyone has
thoughts on whether this would be useful, and if so, what it would take to
build such a package.

Thanks,

  --Vlad
___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

Re: [Bro-Dev] Broker has landed in master, please test

[Robin Sommer]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 20:16 +, Adam wrote:

> I think those question belong on the main list which is for using Bro
> and its language. This list is really more about development of Bro
> itself.

Just to give context here, the reason I sent the original mail about
Broker here, including the request for feedback, was to limit the
initial round of testing to folks quite familiar with Bro and its
internals. That gives us a chance to spot any obvious issues quickly
before annoying everybody else. :-) But discussing it at either place
is fine of course, whatever works best for folks. If things seem to
work, we should definitely also announce the merge more broadly.

Robin

-- 
Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin
___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev