James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: >> No, they get to contribute Wireshark support. It's the existing >> functionality in snoop but not in Wireshark that we'd be saying "oh >> well" about. > > Unless we mark snoop as "obsolete" (as I previously suggested), we > really have no good grounds for directing new projects one way or the > other. I don't see that we have a good committed direction at all. > >> But the flip side is holding the system hostage to funding that may >> never show up. Wireshark is *far* superior to snoop, so not including >> Wireshark if noone will commit to making it a strict superset of snoop >> would also be less than "building a system." > > At least by this proposal, it seems can't even get our act together > enough to nuke snoop away. >
Declaring snoop obsolete is simple enough. Validating that wireshark is a proper superset is rather more involved than seems appropriate to add to this case. I can certainly file the man page bugs post wireshark integration to have snoop marked as obsolete and point to tshark & wireshark as it's replacements. I can also split the packaging so as to mollify those who find any presence of gnome on their systems to be anathema. Is this what is wanted? I'm pretty unwilling to add to this case the removal of snoop. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
