Frankly, conversation structures shouldn't have per-packet data in
them at all; this was probably the easiest way to fix the fuzz
failure, but it really seems odd to me that it even needs to be done.
Thoughts?
True. Per-packet data shouldn't be part of the conversation struct. I'm
working
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/
I don't *think* this affects us, but I haven't thought about it too hard.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Archives:
I think the biggest gotcha with LGPLv3 is that it is no longer
compatible with GPLv2 only code.
Wireshark does not have any GPLv2only code right? If not, we should be ok.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-08-20 18:36 GMT+02:00 ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com:
I think the biggest gotcha with LGPLv3 is that it is no longer
compatible with GPLv2 only code.
Wireshark does not have any GPLv2only code right? If not, we should be ok.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Evan Huus
