> On Jul 28, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
>> in favor of auto-installing the python dependencies into Bro’s install
>> prefix.
>
> I also prefer auto-installation, unless there's a reasonable risk that
> it could interfere with already installed versions of those packets,
> not sure?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 17:52 +, you wrote:
> I think still allowing package sources to be structured in a directory
> hierarchy is more intuitive to navigate and maybe less intimidating to
> modify than a single file as the source grows over time. And I’m
> already using INI format in 2 ot
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:22 PM, Matthias Vallentin wrote:
>
>http://bro.github.io/broker/
>
> It's the bootstrap theme for sphinx, as an alternative to the classic
> read-the-docs theme. I've hacked the sidebar so that it shows the table
> of contents.
I like that theme/layout.
- The prom
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> On the other hand, if, for example, somebody ends up
> browsing the package source repository on GitHub, I'm sure they'd be
> confused by all the packages pointing to very old versions.
Yeah, agree that is confusing and a problem of using s
> - Would suggest to rename “pkg.meta” to, say, “bro-pkg.meta”, just to
> make it more explicit that it's a Bro package. That's something one
> can also then search for on GitHub.
Just throwing in two more permutations: bro.meta or bro.pkg.
> - For our default package source, do we want to su