Hello,
This little patch add some missing RFC references in packet-dhcpv6.c
$ svn diff
Index: epan/dissectors/packet-dhcpv6.c
===
--- epan/dissectors/packet-dhcpv6.c (revision 46386)
+++ epan/dissectors/packet-dhcpv6.c
SideWinder® Freestyle Pro is now displayed as SideWinder\\xc2\\xae
Freestyle Pro. I guess this is the kind of escaping you were thinking
to Anders, right?
Yes something along those lines.
Regards
Anders
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org
Hi,
Done in revision 46397
Please, prefer bugtracker ( https://bugs.wireshark.org ) to report patch (i
known it is a small patch...)
Regards,
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM, François-Xavier Le Bail fx.leb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hello,
This little patch add some missing RFC references in
2012/12/5 Anders Broman anders.bro...@ericsson.com
**
SideWinder® Freestyle Pro is now displayed as SideWinder\\xc2\\xae
Freestyle Pro. I guess this is the kind of escaping you were thinking
to Anders, right?
Yes something along those lines.
Done in r46398.
Regards,
Pascal.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:39:16PM +, bugzilla-dae...@wireshark.org wrote:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7976
Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
The change committed in
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=revrevision=46290
is now pretty defensive. It covers both cases.
RFC 4960 says regarding the chunk length:
The Chunk Length value does not include
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
Thanks,
Evan
[1] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8045
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
Thanks,
Evan
I agree completely: As I've going through the process of
Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
There's only one buildbot doing the fuzz testing, isn't there? (It's
the Clang-Code-Analysis
Jeff Morriss wrote:
Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
There's only one buildbot doing the fuzz testing, isn't there? (It's
the
On 12/5/2012 2:57 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
I agree completely: As I've going
11 matches
Mail list logo
