Thanks a million Jeff.
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org
[mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Morriss
Sent: den 29 november 2012 21:27
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enhance checkapi to check
Wireshark Gurus,
First things, first...
My development system is RHEL v5.6 and as it doesn't support a new enough
version of GTK, my work uses the v1.6.9 SVN head.
That said, I have created my own plugin, it builds and
works great on the system I've developed it on. However, when I
On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:13 AM, morr...@wireshark.org wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=revrevision=46239
User: morriss
Date: 2012/11/27 03:13 PM
Log:
Warn about non-final parameters that
Just a thought, but does your plugin require a library that is on your build
system but not on your install system?
A missing library will keep a plugin from running.
Alex Lindberg
From: Austin Albright chuckbubba...@hotmail.com
To: Wireshark-dev
Hi Gerald,
The fuzz-bot seems to be generating fuzz failures but they're not
showing up as bugs. For example the latest fuzz failure
http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Clang-Code-Analysis/builds/1620/steps/fuzz-menagerie/logs/stdio
was copied to the automated captures area:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Gerald,
The fuzz-bot seems to be generating fuzz failures but they're not showing
up as bugs. For example the latest fuzz failure
http://buildbot.wireshark.org/**trunk/builders/Clang-Code-**
Hi Austin,
Forget about the #include. That's for the compiler to know which file to
include in the compilation. This has nothing to do with the object code you're
distributing.
You state that there's a detailed error message, but you never quote it. What
does it tell you?
trunk-1.6 SVN
-- Alex --
It has only one library dependency, that isn't a fundamental part of
Wireshark... sort of... which is the wimax plugin library (wimax.so)
When I run ldd on the customPlugin.so on my development system and then on the
version installed via RPM on the production system the results are
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Austin Albright
chuckbubba...@hotmail.comwrote:
-- Alex --
It has only one library dependency, that isn't a fundamental part of
Wireshark... sort of... which is the wimax plugin library (wimax.so)
When I run ldd on the customPlugin.so on my development
On 11/30/12 9:22 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Jeff Morriss
jeff.morriss...@gmail.com mailto:jeff.morriss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerald,
The fuzz-bot seems to be generating fuzz failures but they're not
showing up as bugs. For example the latest fuzz
On 11/30/2012 2:05 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:
It looks like I should have read the release notes more closely. Fuzz
failure reporting uses the bugzilla-submit script, which requires
converting to a new status workflow in Bugzilla 4.0 and 4.2:
On 11/30/12 12:01 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
Assuming that the conversion script mentioned in
https://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/
will be run, it appears that the changes in the current status values
will be as follows:
“NEW”
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Gerald Combs ger...@wireshark.org wrote:
On 11/30/12 12:01 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
Assuming that the conversion script mentioned in
https://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/
will be run, it appears
On 11/30/2012 4:08 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
Would UNCONFIRMED be less confusing than CONFIRMED?
I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way
to distinguish between brand new, nobody has looked at it yet bugs and
solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it
On Nov 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote:
I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way to
distinguish between brand new, nobody has looked at it yet bugs and
solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it bugs.
CONFIRMED is somebody's
On Nov 30, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Bill Meier wme...@newsguy.com wrote:
How does the incomplete status get updated when the additional information is
provided ? manually ?
With the bug database I referred to, it was done manually by the provider of
the information.
If manually, is this OK in
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Bill Meier wme...@newsguy.com wrote:
On 11/30/2012 4:08 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
Would UNCONFIRMED be less confusing than CONFIRMED?
I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way
to distinguish between brand new, nobody has looked
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Guy Harris g...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote:
I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way
to distinguish between brand new, nobody has looked at it yet bugs and
solution
18 matches
Mail list logo
