Snort mailing list archives
Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine?
From: Steven Sturges <steve.sturges () sourcefire com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:08:50 -0500
Markus Lude wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 03:18:38PM -0500, Steven Sturges wrote:Hi Markus--Hello Steven,Are you talking about the version number on the .so itself, or the version/build numbers that are internal to the code?I'm talking about the "version" in the filename.The internal version numbers were intended to help in handling compatibility problems, but it is best to replace both the shared libs and Snort together. Generally, when I build/install the .so's, the plain .so actually gets symlink'd to a similarly named file that has a version.On OpenBSD we don't have those symlinks. My problem at the moment is the following: So far I used dynamicengine /usr/local/lib/snort_dynamicengine/libsf_engine.so in snort.conf, even when the file actually was for example libsf_engine.so.3.0. With the changes in 2.8.5 regarding looking after the libs I now either need to add the correct version number to the configuration line or change it to dynamicengine directory /usr/local/lib/snort_dynamicengine/
I'd opt for this approach -- using the directory name -- versus specifying the specific filename from the default config. So long as the install doesn't dump preprocessors, the engine, and .so rules into the same directory, that will work. It seems that would be much more portable and I often kick myself for not doing that initially with the engine anyway. ;)
If I simply drop the version number from the file name my old settings could still be used and one don't need to adjust the version number with every update. As I'm not that familiar I'm unsure if one could simply add "-avoid-version" e.g. to libsf_engine_la_LDFLAGS in case of sf_engine or libsf_ftptelnet_preproc_la_LDFLAGS in case of the ftptelnet preprocessor in the Makefiles.
Not sure on this in terms of how portable that flag is... It might depend on the linker being used.
Hmm, another thing: I didn't find the place for doing the above for the two example libs or where best to disable the build of them. I think those aren't really needed in a package. Or am I wrong here?
No, those are only there as reference implementations, but they need to be included in source distros, so that's why they are referenced in configure.in & the top level Makefile.am. Probably the best way to eliminate from the build right now is to remove the references to dynamic-examples from configure.in and top level Makefile.am. We could look into having a --enable-build-examples or something that causes them to get built, defaulting to off.
Regards, Markus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Snort-devel mailing list Snort-devel () lists sourceforge net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-devel
Current thread:
- version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Markus Lude (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Steven Sturges (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Markus Lude (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Steven Sturges (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Jason Wallace (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Steven Sturges (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Markus Lude (Dec 29)
- Re: version numbers needed for preprocessors / libsf_engine? Steven Sturges (Dec 29)