Re: [meta-networking][PATCH 1/3] snort: add recipe

[Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1774 bytes --]

[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH 1/3] snort: add recipe] On 13.09.24 (Tue 18:16) Paul Eggleton wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> On Monday 23 September 2013 14:22:02 Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH 1/3] snort: add recipe] On 13.09.23 (Mon
> > 18:56) Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm a bit confused; is this recipe supposed to be going into
> > > meta-networking or meta-security? Because patches have been sent
> > > recently to add it to both.
> > 
> > I had mentioned that I would accept snort into meta-networking if it
> > wasn't a good fit for meta-security since it was something I'd started
> > working on integrating anyway a while back.  I assumed that was the case
> > since it was sent to the list for meta-networking today.
> > 
> > I don't think we need copies in both places, though, and since it was
> > first aimed at meta-security, if it gets merged there, I won't merge it
> > here.
> > 
> > Hopefully nothing I've said here contradicts what the meta-security
> > maintainers would want to see.
> 
> I would have thought it would go into meta-security myself; but ultimately 
> it's up to you and Saul really. I just wanted to make sure we didn't somehow 
> end up with it in both layers since we have patches for adding it to both.

Yeah, I completely agree.  Since I'm using meta-security a bit now and
sending a few patches back, I'll keep an eye out and if the snort stuff
lands in there, I would not consider merging it with meta-networking.

Snort has always been in the same category for me as tcpdump, nmap and
etherape/wireshark.  A hugely useful network diagnostics tool.  But as
and IDS / IPS it makes sense for meta-security as well.

Either works for me.

-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]