On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 17:42 +, you wrote:
> The metadata changes discussed in this thread are now in bro-pkg 0.8
I've tried this out now, it's all working great, thanks! I just
noticed one tiny little thing, for which I filed a ticket:
https://bro-tracker.atlassian.net/browse/BIT-1766
The metadata changes discussed in this thread are now in bro-pkg 0.8 (and the
structure of the bro/packages source on GitHub is adapted for it).
- Jon
___
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
Thanks, that and the new text help, I think I got it now. That all
makes sense. Maybe add to the text that tags are not pushed by default
by git, so one shouldn't forget "git push --tags".
Robin
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 18:24 +, you wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Robin Sommer
> On Nov 21, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 15:53 +, you wrote:
>
>> When selecting a version, `bro-pkg update` only considers newer x.y.z
>> release tags for that package. When selecting a branch, it tracks
>> updates along that branch.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 15:53 +, you wrote:
> When selecting a version, `bro-pkg update` only considers newer x.y.z
> release tags for that package. When selecting a branch, it tracks
> updates along that branch.
Ok, sounds like I should think about it not as "master" then, but as
"HEAD
> On Nov 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> What will be the relationship between version tags and the master
> branch? Is master just another version I can select to install?
Yes, any tag or branch can be selected with `bro-pkg install —version `.
When selecting a
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 20:57 +, you wrote:
> Here’s a summary of the set of changes I plan to make related to
> package metadata, let me know if there’s objections or alternate
> ideas:
Sounds all good to me. That should make the Python API easier to use
for accessing meta information, too.
Here’s a summary of the set of changes I plan to make related to package
metadata, let me know if there’s objections or alternate ideas:
1) remove mentions of ‘version' field from bro-pkg.meta as versioning is done
entirely by git tags
2) packages should now put ‘description’ and ‘tags' fields
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Jan Grashöfer wrote:
>
>> Theoretically, if the package was just temporarily unavailable, the next
>> time the aggregation process runs, it would get listed again
>
> How, if it is completely removed?
Oh, duh, I see what you mean. I
> I was thinking that even the upstream source repo could clean out invalid
> packages automatically since their metadata/listing is no longer useful to
> anyone. Did you have more thoughts/concerns about why that might require
> manual interaction?
I just don't get this:
> Theoretically, if
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Jan Grashöfer wrote:
>
> I thought about supporting the operator of the
> upstream source repository in cleaning the repo. However, this will
> require manual interaction anyway and hopefully isn't a use case that
> will be encountered
>> Thanks for the clarification. Automatic removal might be a bit
>> aggressive but a warning would be very helpful I guess.
>
> From the user’s perspective, if they already installed a package that later
> becomes unavailable, they’d see a warning when they do “refresh”, but
> otherwise they
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Jan Grashöfer wrote:
>
> What about the "info" command? If a package is not installed it would be
> nice if the command would obtain the latest meta data from the package's
> repository as well.
Yep, I imagined “info” would still grab
> Aggregating it into the package source is a better solution than having every
> client do it. The later isn’t going to scale well: the client will take
> longer and longer over time as more and more packages get registered to a
> source. Also takes longer as a function of total number of
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:28 -0700, I wrote:
> (if a source operator can do hooks that will avoid any delays at all).
Ah, that's not true of course, it only applies to initial setup of a
package.
Robin
--
Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin
I'll just jump in at the end of the thread: Switching to fully
self-describing packages sounds great to me, that should solve all the
issues I noticed. I also don't quite recall the reasoning for arriving
at the current scheme, but it was probably a combination of iterating
over the design a few
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Jan Grashöfer wrote:
>
> Correct me if I am wrong
> but bro-pkg.meta contains stuff like script_dir and dependencies (so
> rather technically), whereas bro-pkg.index contains the descriptive
> information like info text and tags (which is
> That could be misleading. The purpose of putting those tags in bro-pkg.index
> is because they are related to package “discoverability” and it’s easier to
> search that data if it’s located in a single repo, the package source, rather
> than having to download the entire universe of packages
Playing with Bro packages and bundles, there's one thing where I ended
up a bit confused and that's the meta data. We have two places right
now that store meta data about a package: there's the central set
stored with the package source (bro-pkg.index), and then there's the
set coming with the
19 matches
Mail list logo