[Bro-Dev] package manager progress

Slagell, Adam J slagell at illinois.edu
Thu Aug 4 19:47:36 PDT 2016

Hhhm, is it naming conventions that people have a problem with or the implication of policing? These can be separated. I don’t see a downside to promoting conventions. 

It also seems that some of the reason (e.g., that we have metadata is based on an assumption that we will have good metadata). But I recall a lot of resistance to requiring basic metadata.

I believe this merits a little more discussion and would like to nudge behavior if possible, though not compel it. We could do this by simply providing a skeleton taxonomy into which people could always just through things in “misc” or some equivalent.

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Robin Sommer <robin at icir.org> wrote:
> Make it four. :) I'm with Seth, too, better not to enforce any naming
> scheme because the boundaries are unclear. Also, note that a single
> binary Bro plugin can provide multiple quite different things (say, a
> reader and an analyzer and a packet source all at the same time, if
> one so desires :).
> Also agree with Johanna: the username is part of the package name if I
> follow correctly, so there's disambiguation there.
> I have some more feeback on the package manager and Jon's questions
> starting this thread, will send soon.
> Robin
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 09:15 -0700, you wrote:
>> And to add a me three to this - I am also with him on this one. On top 
>> of things - I might misremember this, but didn't we plan package names 
>> to include the github user name at one point of time? So a package name 
>> would be user/redis, for example, and there also could be user2/redis?
>> Johanna
>> On 27 Jul 2016, at 9:05, Matthias Vallentin wrote:
>>>> I actually don't like this that much because some of these can cross
>>>> boundaries and do all sorts of different things in a single plugin.
>>>> It makes more sense to me to leave the naming open.
>>> I'm with Seth on this one. The reason why I think we should keep the
>>> naming open is that it's the job of the meta data tags to take care of
>>> the grouping. If someone writes a redis package, then they should 
>>> apply
>>> the redis package. Encoding this meta data into the package name is
>>> quite limited, however.
>>>    Matthias
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bro-dev mailing list
>>> bro-dev at bro.org
>>> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> bro-dev mailing list
>> bro-dev at bro.org
>> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
> -- 
> Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * robin at icir.org * www.icir.org/robin
> _______________________________________________
> bro-dev mailing list
> bro-dev at bro.org
> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

More information about the bro-dev mailing list