[ARGUS] cleanup pcap vs bpf, add clients RPM

[slif at bellsouth.net]

Hi, Carter.   I've reissued all of the patches individually.
I've honored the community's use of /usr/local for the RPM packages.

Would you consider keeping the changes that may not be suitable
for all platforms in your un-official patches repository ?
Un-official because you likely would not approve something
you haven't tested or won't support.

Carter Bullard wrote:
> Hey Mike,
> Many of the include file changes you are suggesting refer to
> includes that are more historical than anything else, and apply to
> older versions of os's like irix, hp and solaris, and of course
> several older versions of linux.  I have no idea if your
> suggested changes will break anything, and I don't have access
> to all the machines that will need to be tested to assure that
> we're not breaking something.

I believe this list discussed problems with naming bpf.h,
and a realization that older libpcap header files are included
in the project.  One of the patches removes those older pcap
header files. Other patches make use of pcap.h, which is
the recommended libpcap published header.
 Nothing OS specific that I can see.

> 
> So, should we change any of these things?  I'm not sure.  Are we
> changing them because there is a real issue with these references
> or is it just janitorial?

Deleting out-of-date pcap header files is better, I think.
Install pcap and use the header files that it comes with.
This will avoid any out-of-sync issues that may exist today.

> 
> OK, we had the /usr argument years ago, and that was shot down,
> so I don't see bringing that up again. I can add the rpm spec
> file but without the /usr change?

The new patches use /usr/local

> 
> I can see making sure that any major version number change
> that we make has these changes in it.  So if you could break
> out your patch so that at least one of them doesn't remove
> anything then I can make your recommended changes.


Thanks for ocnsidering them.
If a patch isn't acceptable, knowing why not would be helpful.

> 
> 
> 
> Opinions?

Sorry. I don't have time %^)

> 
> Carter
> 
> 
> 
>>From: <slif at bellsouth.net>
>>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:19:29 -0400
>>To: <argus-info at lists.andrew.cmu.edu>
>>Subject: [ARGUS] cleanup pcap vs bpf, add clients RPM
>>
>>Here are two patches to 2.0.6.fixes.1 that were tested on:
>>  Linux (Debian, Redhat 9, Fedora Core 2)
>>  FreeBSD (4.9, 5.2.1)
[SNIP gory details removed for brevity -Mike Slifcak]
>>                 
>>Regards,
>>-Mike Slifcak
>>
> 
> 
> 
>