Hi there,
I was wondering if we still can't upload fixed packages for the 0.8.0
bin dist... in particular, I am recently again swamped by mails
complaining about ethereal-0.10.9-11 problems (besides other things
it is missing a dep on gtk+2). I fixed those ages ago, but I still
keep
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 point on, whenever people mailed me about
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
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 if
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
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
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
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 get a broken .deb in
the bindist
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 fixed and should be working now. I have been
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 compiled
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 still use fink?
Thanks,
Zach
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
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.
-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
-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
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
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
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?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just
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
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
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 no version symbol
** WARNING **: The plugin gryphon.so has no version symbol
** WARNING **:
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
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
Hi Max
I'm trying to update fink on my computer but the update always crashes
on ethereal.
Unstable tree is used.
It shows always the same error :
etherealS.c:1972: parse error before `@'
make[2]: *** [ethereal] Error 1
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error
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-snmp package if
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 snmp just to get
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 is slightly
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 and
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
Title: Ethereal
Hi again Max,
OK, guinea pig time again. This time it's a real pleasure. I lost a hard drive recently so I have a very fresh install of OS X and Fink. Still, Ethereal 9.1 and 9.2 both crashed regularly with errors relating to memory and image manipulation. I sent you e-mails
30 matches
Mail list logo
