This has come up a few times and the motivation is mainly better "first timer"
experience with Zeek. Concretely, if one wants to run a Zeek cluster with
multiple workers and reasonable load balancing on Linux, AF_PACKET is a decent
start. Without AF_PACKET support being built into Zeek, however, a new user's
next experience is that of setting up a development environment in order
to compile an external plugin (think compiler, kernel headers, zkg, ...).
Only to get what could be termed basic functionality.
This is using the ZEEK_INCLUDE_PLUGINS infrastructure. I've used the all
upper case spelling of AF_PACKET in the help output because it seems everyone
else references/writes it like that. I think we should also write it
like that in the docs.
This also installs symlinks from "zeek" and "bro-config" to a wrapper
script that prints a deprecation warning.
The btests pass, but this is still WIP. broctl renaming is still
missing.
#239
Updated README and collected coverage-related tests in a common dir.
There are still coverage failures resulting from either the following
scripts not being @load'd in the default bro mode:
base/frameworks/time-machine/notice.bro
base/protocols/http/partial-content.bro
base/protocols/rpc/main.bro
Or the following result in errors when @load'd:
policy/protocols/conn/scan.bro
policy/hot.conn.bro
If these are all scripts-in-progress, can we move them all to live
outside the main scripts/ directory until they're ready?
2011-09-27 12:41:30 -05:00
Renamed from testing/btest/scripts/policy/misc/default-loaded-scripts.test (Browse further)
