-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Scripts packaging and distribution network #148
Comments
With all respect, I don't think this is a good idea for the following reasons:
Having a website that resembles a search engine to find scripts and search inside scripts may be useful, provided it made it clear all scripts were unsupported. |
Thanks for the feedback. This idea I had was extension of the demonstration we had of
My suggestion is to not have
Yes, I agree with this. I think you are in a better position to know what is more relevant.
Just like in packaging for distributions we can have a review process etc. to overcome this. Soon, over some time, we would have a large collection of scripts just like yours which would be a bit easy to manage and use. In one of your presentations you mention that the script users are numerous but the creators are a few. This can be a good opportunity to have a script distribution system for those creators so that they can reach the numerous script users easily. When I want to try SystemTap, it would really help me as a user to just look at those examples, right from easy to elaborate, well classified and organized from which I could pick some, alter and try them or just directly run them - right from where I am working. The problems which I see is the considerable effort which would be put in validating the scripts and making sure they work always. This I agree can be counter-productive for some. Even if this is a bad idea I would just stress on the fact that we could do these two things - teach people how to use BCC and BPF scripts from ground up, and/or distribute scripts and just lightly hint users how to modify them and carry onwards. We could also do both. Python has a successful way of distributing packages with the optional
This is a very nice post :) Thanks. I would say that we can have only validated scripts. As they have followed the review process, they would not ruin the experience. The unsupported ones of course would be 'unrated' on the distribution network (like an extra respository installed manually etc) As I said problem is to manage these contributions and it would not be a one man task. Apart from this, I would like to say to BCC devs that Brendan's experience is more relevant here as I am just a beginner and voicing out my thoughts and I may be really wrong. |
I've been thinking about this request quite a bit, and will continue to think about it some more. I will get around to documenting the formal proposal here, but in a nutshell I would tend to take more of the purist packaging approach when possible. That is, keep everything modular, with simple to follow dependencies, and keep as close to the distribution of choice's packaging structure as possible. To achieve that, the repo and directory structuring of bcc first needs formalization and cleanup, which is why for the time being I will spend some time on that legwork. Thus, you will see some things like #166 . |
Can I close this ticket? I still think it's over engineering for most people... |
Have some infra where people can submit their BPF 'analysis script bundles' and easily access and download scripts written by other people. For example, a person willing to do an analysis can search through scripts, their descriptions, public rating, certification, number of downloads etc. We can extend it to a minimal bundle packaging system as well. There can be commands like,
Then, run them using
bpf-run
In the long run, we could also provide a web interface to browse different scripts and see what they do just as in https://atlas.hashicorp.com/boxes/search with the history of all the addition to the scripts. In addition, we can also show description and how a typical analysis and output would look.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: