Re: [Wireshark-dev] Buildbot Man Page Generation
Hi Evan, 2014-08-10 4:41 GMT+02:00 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Clang%20Code%20Analysis/builds/2911/steps/check-abi/logs/stdio I took a quick look at the recent check-abi buildbot failure, which appears to be manpage related: wireshark.pod around line 3525: Non-ASCII character seen before =encoding in 'KovEaacuteř'. Assuming UTF-8 POD document had syntax errors at /usr/bin/pod2man line 71. Which is curious, because wireshark.pod.template *does* have an =encoding line... Also of note is that we appear to be passing --title=The Wireshark Network Analyzer 1.8.2 to the generator on trunk, which is just wrong. Anybody know what's going on? This is the lts-1.8.2 branch but the builds are shown on trunk's buildbot. I updated the LTS branches before releasing the update to Debian in a hope that the patched could be fuzz-tested by the buildbots, but I think LTS branches are not fuzz-tested. I have fixed a few build problems along the security fixes, but did not have time to fix this one, too. Cheers, Balint ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Warning users on XP *before* uninstalling the old version?
On 10 August 2014 02:55, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote: Per this comment, seems like it would be a good idea: https://blog.wireshark.org/2014/07/wireshark-1-12-officially-released/comment-page-1/#comment-3385 Don't know much about the Windows installer though, this may not be possible? From the release notes: 2.4. Platform Support Support for Windows XP has been deprecated. We will make an effort to support it for as long as possible but our ability to do so depends on upstream packages and other factors beyond our control. As users obviously don't read the release notes! I think we should maybe get the installer to check if the host OS is XP, and then offer the warning before doing anything else. -- Graham Bloice ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Buildbot Man Page Generation
On Aug 10, 2014, at 7:06, Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.hu wrote: Hi Evan, 2014-08-10 4:41 GMT+02:00 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Clang%20Code%20Analysis/builds/2911/steps/check-abi/logs/stdio I took a quick look at the recent check-abi buildbot failure, which appears to be manpage related: wireshark.pod around line 3525: Non-ASCII character seen before =encoding in 'KovEaacuteř'. Assuming UTF-8 POD document had syntax errors at /usr/bin/pod2man line 71. Which is curious, because wireshark.pod.template *does* have an =encoding line... Also of note is that we appear to be passing --title=The Wireshark Network Analyzer 1.8.2 to the generator on trunk, which is just wrong. Anybody know what's going on? This is the lts-1.8.2 branch but the builds are shown on trunk's buildbot. I updated the LTS branches before releasing the update to Debian in a hope that the patched could be fuzz-tested by the buildbots, but I think LTS branches are not fuzz-tested. I have fixed a few build problems along the security fixes, but did not have time to fix this one, too. Ah ok. I wonder why lts branch builds are showing up on the master Buildbot...? Cheers, Balint ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Warning users on XP *before* uninstalling the old version?
Other possibilities? 1.Disable the auto-update feature if Wireshark is running on Windows XP. 2.Leave the auto-update enabled, but have it only check against the latest 1.10.x version (if possible)? 3.Since Wireshark 1.12.x still works on Windows XP, possibly change the message from “This version may not work on Windows XP …” to something else, such as, “This version is unsupported on Windows XP. If you experience problems, please report them and revert to an earlier version of Wireshark instead.” … where “earlier version” is not necessarily the latest 1.10.x release since we know 1.12.0 still works. We could also refer them to http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LifeCycle? That way they pretty much know that they’re on their own. Once a future version of Wireshark is known NOT to work on Windows XP, then handle it just like 2000, NT, …? - Chris From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Graham Bloice Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:10 AM To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Warning users on XP *before* uninstalling the old version? On 10 August 2014 02:55, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.commailto:eapa...@gmail.com wrote: Per this comment, seems like it would be a good idea: https://blog.wireshark.org/2014/07/wireshark-1-12-officially-released/comment-page-1/#comment-3385 Don't know much about the Windows installer though, this may not be possible? From the release notes: 2.4. Platform Support Support for Windows XP has been deprecated. We will make an effort to support it for as long as possible but our ability to do so depends on upstream packages and other factors beyond our control. As users obviously don't read the release notes! I think we should maybe get the installer to check if the host OS is XP, and then offer the warning before doing anything else. -- Graham Bloice CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the intended recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by replying to this email. Thank you. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Warning users on XP *before* uninstalling the old version?
2014-08-10 16:56 GMT+02:00 Maynard, Chris christopher.mayn...@gtech.com: Other possibilities? 1.Disable the auto-update feature if Wireshark is running on Windows XP. 2.Leave the auto-update enabled, but have it only check against the latest 1.10.x version (if possible)? 3.Since Wireshark 1.12.x still works on Windows XP, possibly change the message from “This version may not work on Windows XP …” to something else, such as, “This version is unsupported on Windows XP. If you experience problems, please report them and revert to an earlier version of Wireshark instead.” … where “earlier version” is not necessarily the latest 1.10.x release since we know 1.12.0 still works. We could also refer them to http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LifeCycle? That way they pretty much know that they’re on their own. Once a future version of Wireshark is known NOT to work on Windows XP, then handle it just like 2000, NT, …? - Chris *From:* wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] *On Behalf Of *Graham Bloice *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:10 AM *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev] Warning users on XP *before* uninstalling the old version? On 10 August 2014 02:55, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote: Per this comment, seems like it would be a good idea: https://blog.wireshark.org/2014/07/wireshark-1-12-officially-released/comment-page-1/#comment-3385 Don't know much about the Windows installer though, this may not be possible? From the release notes: 2.4. Platform Support Support for Windows XP has been deprecated. We will make an effort to support it for as long as possible but our ability to do so depends on upstream packages and other factors beyond our control. As users obviously don't read the release notes! I think we should maybe get the installer to check if the host OS is XP, and then offer the warning before doing anything else. -- Graham Bloice Hi, in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/3533/, I moved the Windows version check prior to the uninstaller. Pascal. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to support wireshark w/o having an OpenID
-Original Message- From: Kevin Cox kevin...@kevincox.ca Sent: Aug 9, 2014 4:05 PM To: Developer support list for Wireshark wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to support wireshark w/o having an OpenID On 09/08/14 12:51, Toralf Förster wrote: My question is rather, whether it is mandatory to register at one of the big IT players or if an email address would be sufficient. You don't need to register at one of the big IT players, I think that Wireshark gerrit is set up to accept any OpenID provider. However I believe you are asking if you can sign up with just an email and I'm pretty sure the answer is no because gerrit doesn't do its own authentication. Basically the story is—as currently set up—you need an OpenID but who your provider is doesn't matter, you can use a public service or set your own up but it has to be OpenID. Sorry if that doesn't suit you, maybe you could start a discussion about alternate authentication methods however gerrit doesn't support much.[0] [0] https://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.1/config-gerrit.html#auth I'm not sure it matters sufficiently that it could or should cause course alteration, but as one who has contributed modestly to Wireshark before the move to gerrit, but not since then, I'd have to say that for me, the setup/registration/configuration/etc. has definitely impeded further contributions. The new process is something that I haven't really gotten around to trying to figure out. I'm not saying it's the wrong choice, but it's just that much more effort to even *submit* a patch, that I suspect that a lot of would-be contributors might find the threshold too high. Maybe updating documentation could help. Right now, if you go to the main develop page https://www.wireshark.org/develop.html and click on the link under code review site you get to https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/q/status:open,n,z which offers no clue at all as to how one should actually register. I'm sure I could figure it out, and I'm sure many have. It's just that I'd really just like to be able to contribute patches without having to do quite so much exploration. Maybe I'm just lazy, but it might be nice if the barrier to useful contribution were lowered just a bit. Ed ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
