On Nov 27, 2005, at 1:51 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Hi folks,
the ethereal 0.10.9-11 package in the bindist used to be broken (in
several ways). Hence I replaced it in stable by version 0.10.12,
and somebody (I think drm) updated the bindist with a new .deb made
from that version.
From this p
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition to the 10.3 binary being broken (thanks to Alexander K.
> Hansen for verifying this), it seems that the 0.10.9-11 binary has
> some missing dependencies. All of those are fixed in the current
> stable version. So if possible it would be nice
In addition to the 10.3 binary being broken (thanks to Alexander K.
Hansen for verifying this), it seems that the 0.10.9-11 binary has
some missing dependencies. All of those are fixed in the current
stable version. So if possible it would be nice if that could be used
for the bindist inste
David R. Morrison wrote:
On Jul 24, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Hi there,
I got some reports which indicate that the ethereal binary in the
10.3 bindist is broken (the .deb is missing the ethereal binary
itself). I haven't confirmed this yet, but despite this, I wonder:
What exactly
On Jul 24, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Max Horn wrote:Hi there,I got some reports which indicate that the ethereal binary in the 10.3 bindist is broken (the .deb is missing the ethereal binary itself). I haven't confirmed this yet, but despite this, I wonder: What exactly would be the process these days to g
> "Alexander" == Alexander K Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexander> My reading of the responses on the lists was that the later ethereal
Alexander> version that you get from source (0.10.0a-11 vs. 0.9.14-1 from
Alexander> binary) does indeed seem to work.
Yes. As a test, I just compi
On Mar 17, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Patrick Toomey wrote:
Hi,
I just recently subscribed, but have done a search in the archives
on this issue. It seems that the last message regarding the
Ethereal/GTK issue was posed in January. The response to the inquiry
basically stated that everything is fix
Am 30.01.2004 um 00:09 schrieb Zach Berke:
Hi,
I see a thread from about 1 1/2 months ago
regarding a new version of GTK breaking ethereal.
Is it still broke? I'm getting the same errors
people were reporting a while ago. What's the
fix? How do I apply the patch that was posted
and stil
Am 31.12.2003 um 02:45 schrieb Mark E. Perkins:
Max Horn wrote:
Thanks, but it has already been updated to an even newer version in
CVS.
Do you plan to update the 10.2-gcc3.3 tree as well? I see that 0.10.0
is now in 10.3/unstable, but all I can find under 10.2-gcc-3.3 is the
previous 0.9.16.
Max Horn wrote:
Thanks, but it has already been updated to an even newer version in CVS.
Do you plan to update the 10.2-gcc3.3 tree as well? I see that 0.10.0 is
now in 10.3/unstable, but all I can find under 10.2-gcc-3.3 is the
previous 0.9.16.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Am 31.12.2003 um 00:10 schrieb Kyle Moffett:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 30, 2003, at 18:09, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Dec 29, 2003, at 11:30, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/ethereal lists there
being a 0.9.16-11 ethereal but only 0.9.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 30, 2003, at 18:09, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Dec 29, 2003, at 11:30, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/ethereal lists there
being a 0.9.16-11 ethereal but only 0.9.14-1 ethereal-ssl. Any reason
for that?
There
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 29, 2003, at 11:30, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/ethereal lists there being
a 0.9.16-11 ethereal but only 0.9.14-1 ethereal-ssl. Any reason for
that?
There was a fix recently to ethereal that repaired is
Sorry, just noticed this last post. The patches i made to imlib's
ltmain.sh fixed the compatibility version of the library, and i added a
versioned dependency of eterm on it to make sure it built against the
new one.
The patches were in the wrong order before which made them not work. (2
p
That would be Ben Hines (credit where credit's due)!
--On Monday, November 17, 2003 3:57 AM -0500 Gary Kerbaugh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys,
Who did that? Alexander, was that you? For a package without a
maintainer, that was the fastest maintenance job in the West. Now I'm not
one to
Hi guys,
Who did that? Alexander, was that you? For a package without a
maintainer, that was the fastest maintenance job in the West. Now I'm not
one to look a gift horse in the mouth but I am insatiably curious. What did
you do? You can of course answer at your leisure since the real work has
on 11/16/03 8:23 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> Which did you recompile, imlib or eterm?
>
I have to say that¹s an excellent point so I was compelled recompile
both, several times. Originally it was Eterm but I'm surprised I hadn't
recompiled both. I also wanted to see if my flags made any dif
Which did you recompile, imlib or eterm?
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 07:52 PM, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm not having much luck with the E's recently. Every time Ethereal
starts or stops I get a list of errors and warnings like the follwing:
** WARNING **: The plugin artnet.so has
On 5/4/02 6:45 PM, "Max Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 16:03 Uhr +1000 05.04.2002, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
>> On 4/4/02 11:07 PM, "Max Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Right now there is no support for snmp in ethereal, since I figured
>>> not everybody wants to have to install
At 16:03 Uhr +1000 05.04.2002, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
>On 4/4/02 11:07 PM, "Max Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Right now there is no support for snmp in ethereal, since I figured
>> not everybody wants to have to install snmp just to get ethereal. I
>> guess I could make an "ethereal-snm
On 4/4/02 11:07 PM, "Max Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Right now there is no support for snmp in ethereal, since I figured
> not everybody wants to have to install snmp just to get ethereal. I
> guess I could make an "ethereal-snmp" package if there is enough
> demand.
>
>
> Max
This i
At 9:39 Uhr -0600 03.04.2002, Juan Courcoul wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 05:48 PM, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
>...
>> Well, I doggedly updated to Ethereal 9.3 when you posted it to
>>CVS. Voila!! (Sorry about the French, but I don't know the German
>>word) It works perfectly! In fact,
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 05:48 PM, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
...
Well, I doggedly updated to Ethereal 9.3 when you posted it to CVS. Voila!! (Sorry about the French, but I don't know the German word) It works perfectly! In fact, it's bulletproof!! I tried everything I could to crash it and it
At 14:45 Uhr +0200 03.04.2002, Olivier M. wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
>> Well, I doggedly updated to Ethereal 9.3 when you posted it to CVS.
>> Voila!! (Sorry about the French, but I don't know the German word) It works
>> perfectly! In fact, it's
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
> Well, I doggedly updated to Ethereal 9.3 when you posted it to CVS.
> Voila!! (Sorry about the French, but I don't know the German word) It works
> perfectly! In fact, it's bulletproof!! I tried everything I could to crash
> it a
25 matches
Mail list logo
