On 21/12/23 12:43, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Hi João,
On 2023. Dec 21., Thu at 12:02, João Valverde wrote:
On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
> Hi,
> To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb
packages
> and make repos to easily update and maintain
Hi Guy,
Guy Harris ezt írta (időpont: 2023. dec. 21., Cs, 21:04):
>
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 6:51 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure why libvirt dissector users should be "their users". In my
> > eyes they are very much our users as well since they use Wireshark extended
> > with the
On Dec 21, 2023, at 6:51 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> I'm not sure why libvirt dissector users should be "their users". In my eyes
> they are very much our users as well since they use Wireshark extended with
> the plugin and I'm happy that they get the best service.
It appears that the
Hi Roland,
Roland Knall ezt írta (időpont: 2023. dec. 20., Sze,
20:44):
>
> We messed up in a sense, that we should have found an argument and final
position on API compatibility. Not that it did not work out well, but it
"happened" instead of being planned
>
> That was, what I meant with
Hi João,
On 2023. Dec 21., Thu at 12:02, João Valverde wrote:
>
> On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages
> > and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers.
> > This is a feature I vote for
Den tors 21 dec. 2023 12:03João Valverde skrev:
>
> On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages
> > and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers.
> > This is a feature I vote for us to keep
On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages
and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers.
This is a feature I vote for us to keep regardless of any opinion on
how Debian build their packages. Maybe
Hi,
To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages and
make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers. This is
a feature I vote for us to keep regardless of any opinion on how Debian
build their packages. Maybe a Debian mailing list is a better place to
On 20/12/23 22:35, Roland Knall wrote:
Am 20.12.2023 um 22:43 schrieb João Valverde :
On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote:
Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde :
On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
So people can link to our libraries to write other projets? And
> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:43 schrieb João Valverde :
>
>
>
>> On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde :
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
So people can link to our libraries to write other projets?
On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote:
Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde :
On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
So people can link to our libraries to write other projets? And expect it to
work reliably? That is news to me. I have made this question many times over
the
> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde :
>
>
>
>> On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am Mi., 20. Dez. 2023 um 21:24 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :
>>
>>
>>
>>On 20/12/23 16:06, Roland Knall wrote:
>>> Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points
On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
Am Mi., 20. Dez. 2023 um 21:24 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :
On 20/12/23 16:06, Roland Knall wrote:
> Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points are
valid.
> It makes sense, that building debian packages from the
Am Mi., 20. Dez. 2023 um 21:24 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :
>
>
> On 20/12/23 16:06, Roland Knall wrote:
> > Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points are valid.
> > It makes sense, that building debian packages from the repository
> > should behave in the same way as it does
On 20/12/23 16:06, Roland Knall wrote:
Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points are valid.
It makes sense, that building debian packages from the repository
should behave in the same way as it does with the overall projects.
Now, one could argue, that having multiple
We messed up in a sense, that we should have found an argument and final
position on API compatibility. Not that it did not work out well, but it
"happened" instead of being planned
That was, what I meant with "messed up".
I read their argument and I still disagree. It might be the best for
Roland Knall ezt írta (időpont: 2023. dec. 20., Sze, 17:06):
>
> Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points are valid. It
> makes sense, that building debian packages from the repository should behave
> in the same way as it does with the overall projects. Now, one could argue,
Ok, I am not ignoring those points, as I think those points are valid. It
makes sense, that building debian packages from the repository should
behave in the same way as it does with the overall projects. Now, one could
argue, that having multiple packages could have been avoided in the
beginning
Keep in mind I am just a user but I'm not one to skip a good technical
discussion.
I'm ignoring your other points on purpose, there is only so much I can
handle in one sitting.
On 20/12/23 13:24, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Having separate packages follows Debian packaging best practices and
Hi Balint
It would be worth amending the Readme with this information, as well as the
packaging section of the wiki, to ensure this information is not getting
lost and future discussions may be avoided by pointing to it.
kind regards
Roland
Am Mi., 20. Dez. 2023 um 14:24 Uhr schrieb Bálint
Hi,
João Valverde ezt írta (időpont: 2023. nov. 27., H, 21:42):
>
>
>
> On 27/11/23 16:26, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:54 AM João Valverde wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 22/11/23 15:37, John Thacker wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde wrote:
> >>
>
On 27/11/23 16:26, Jeff Morriss wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:54 AM João Valverde wrote:
On 22/11/23 15:37, John Thacker wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde wrote:
There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in
my opinion, if we
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:54 AM João Valverde wrote:
>
> On 22/11/23 15:37, John Thacker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my opinion,
>> if we want to provide public shared libraries
I kindly ask you to decide whether we should keep the Debian package
as-is and explain the use-case for the current state of the Debian
package in Wireshark, because it is not clear to me at all. Honestly,
the situation kind of baffles me since it is not used by the Debian
project and they
I think this falls well within the scope of the steering committee, and would
be a good first exercise.
On 11/22/23 3:45 AM, Roland Knall wrote:
Hi
I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering
committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in
On 22/11/23 15:37, John Thacker wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde wrote:
There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my
opinion, if we want to provide public shared libraries
(libwireshark, wiretap, wsutil... for what I don't know) we should
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:37 AM John Thacker wrote:
>
> I think moving the packaging assets to the packaging directory and telling
> people to symbolically link it to build Debian, as we've been doing, is a
> relatively minor imposition for the Debian folks, but my understanding is
> that the
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde wrote:
>
> There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my opinion, if
> we want to provide public shared libraries (libwireshark, wiretap,
> wsutil... for what I don't know) we should do a better job of that
> collectively as a
On 22/11/23 14:39, João Valverde wrote:
On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi Joao,
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I
really don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty
much
On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi Joao,
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really
don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much
exactly the same as the old committee, as far
On 22/11/23 13:23, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev wrote:
Pretty sure I'm not adding anything useful here, but I was only
vaguely aware of debian packaging support. If I'm sharing builds with
colleagues, I use Windows packaging, or for Ubuntu we tend to set
CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, build
On 22/11/23 13:29, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:25, João Valverde a écrit :
On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi Joao,
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:25, João Valverde a écrit :
>
> On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
>
> Hi Joao,
>
> Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
>
>> You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
>> care to wait for the new committee that is
On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi Joao,
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really
don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much
exactly the same as the old committee, as far as
Pretty sure I'm not adding anything useful here, but I was only vaguely
aware of debian packaging support. If I'm sharing builds with colleagues,
I use Windows packaging, or for Ubuntu we tend to set CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX,
build the 'install' target and transfer it as a tarball.
On Wed, Nov 22,
So you want to discuss how to make it easier? We can do that. How do you
feel about the CPack Debian Generator?
On 22/11/23 12:38, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
I think that if you look at the commit history I have made my fair
share of updating the list in the past.
I was just trying to make
Hi Joao,
Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde a écrit :
> You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
> care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same as
> the old committee, as far as I can tell.
>
> Anyway silence is another
You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same
as the old committee, as far as I can tell.
Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried
to bring something to the
Hi,
I think that if you look at the commit history I have made my fair share of
updating the list in the past.
I was just trying to make the point that some found it useful to be able to
build Deb packages and it might be more fruitful to discuss how that could
be made easier? I think today the
Hi
I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering
committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in
January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in
the first place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished
by the
Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets?
Since you've got the experience and actually use it?
There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were
until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active
staying on top of the
Really important work there... nothing gets me out of bed like
suppressing someone else's future potential needs using crappy tools and
methodologies.
This isn't a criticism of Debian. Use the Debian system if you like it,
don't use it if you don't.
It is a criticism of Debian in Wireshark,
Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide
internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders
Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall skrev:
> As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as
As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am against
dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, and
not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I
respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think,
44 matches
Mail list logo
