On Apr 12, 2024, at 6:49 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> Is there any reason not to require libpcap 1.0 or later? If there is, is
> there any reason not to require libpcap 0.7 or later?
OK, support removed, in the main branch. for libpcaps with only pre-1.0 APIs.
The 4.99 branch still supports
--- Begin Message ---
On 25/04/2024 12:25, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:18:47 -0700
> Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 5:49 AM, Denis Ovsienko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:49:05 -0700
>>> Guy Harris wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Since tcpdump is the
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:18:47 -0700
Guy Harris wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2024, at 5:49 AM, Denis Ovsienko
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:49:05 -0700
> > Guy Harris wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Since tcpdump is the reference implementation of a program that uses
> > libpcap, it may be a good
On Apr 19, 2024, at 5:49 AM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:49:05 -0700
> Guy Harris wrote:
...
> Since tcpdump is the reference implementation of a program that uses
> libpcap, it may be a good occasion to improve the solution space such
> that other software can copy
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:49:05 -0700
Guy Harris wrote:
> A while ago, tcpdump and its configuration script were modified -
> mainly by Bill Fenner, as I remember - so that it didn't require a
> contemporary version of libpcap, and could be built with older
> versions of libpcap.
>
> The intent,
Guy Harris wrote:
> A while ago, tcpdump and its configuration script were modified -
> mainly by Bill Fenner, as I remember - so that it didn't require a
> contemporary version of libpcap, and could be built with older versions
> of libpcap.
For instance, I think, the FreeBSD
