[OISF/outreachy] Repetition of similar issues

[Shivani Bhardwaj]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:58 PM Vidushi Agrawal <vidushi229 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:24 PM Shivani Bhardwaj <sbhardwaj at openinfosecfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Vidushi!
>
> Hi Shivani,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 7:35 PM Vidushi Agrawal via Outreachy
>> <outreachy at lists.openinfosecfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Redmine tickets #2893 and #2851 seem to indicate the same issue which has already been fixed in PR https://github.com/OISF/suricata-update/pull/116. Did I miss something?
>> >
>> No, they aren't. 2851 has an open PR which tends to fix the cases
>> where suricata-update does not properly takes actions on the files
>> defined under the `ignore` section in update.yaml file. However, one
>> should not be required to add *deleted.rules to the `ignore` section
>> in update.yaml or command line option at all. It should happen by
>> default. If you check `suricata-update -h`, you'll find that
>> corresponding to the `--ignore <pattern>` option, we mention `default:
>> *deleted.rules`. Since the *deleted.rules still get loaded, this needs
>> to be fixed.
>
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
> So ideally update.yaml shouldn't have *deleted.rules in the `ignore` section and should still ignore *deleted.rules. Did I get it right?

Yes. That should be the default behavior.

>>
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Vidushi
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Outreachy mailing list
>> > Outreachy at lists.openinfosecfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/listinfo/outreachy
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shivani



-- 
Shivani