-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 31 August 2012 03:15
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors
Evan Huus skrev 2012-08-30 04:31:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman a.bro...@bredband.net wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
all
the dissectors in the same directory. make -j 40
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Anders Broman a.bro...@bredband.net wrote:
Evan Huus skrev 2012-08-30 04:31:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman a.bro...@bredband.net
wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
As I wrote the opensafety package, I would like to split it up a
little bit to make it more maintainable, as well as include two new
subdissectors, which use the openSAFETY protocol, but are
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
I would assume you'd need 5 or 6 files at least to make a folder
worthwhile, but I don't think that's a hard rule. None
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors
[Graham Bloice said]
Some folks have articulated the drawbacks (to them) of making these
changes but I haven't seen any actual advantages listed. Can anyone list
them as they see it?
+1
___
Sent via:
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
I would assume you'd need 5 or 6 files
support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
I would assume
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
I would
for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
I would assume you'd need 5 or 6
...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
epan/dissectors/
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall rkn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:34:05PM +0100, Mike Morrin wrote:
If the directory structure is changed, I think that it would be sensible
to group dissectors by the organisation responsible for the protocol
specification, e.g, all GSM/UMTS/LTE dissectors would go in a 3GPP
directory, etc.
...
[Graham Bloice said]
Some folks have articulated the drawbacks (to them) of making these
changes but I haven't seen any actual advantages listed. Can anyone list
them as they see it?
Well I used to work on packet-dcm for a while, and considering myself a
novice, it was painful to find 'my'
On 08/30/2012 04:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Bromana.bro...@bredband.net wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
all
the dissectors in the same directory. make
Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.com wrote:
Unwieldy how? Except for having to know not to do vi
epan/dissectors/tabtab (for fear of too many pages of output) I don't
find the directory unwieldy.
That's part of it - I still do that
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Jaap Keuter jaap.keu...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 08/30/2012 04:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Bromana.bro...@bredband.net
wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ed Beroset bero...@mindspring.com wrote:
Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unwieldy how? Except for having to know not to do vi
epan/dissectors/tabtab (for fear of too many pages of output) I
Having re-read the entire thread, I've gathered the following list of
objections. I think it covers all of the concerns mentioned so far (in
no particular order):
1 potential for file-name collisions
2 increased difficulty in using tab-completion
3 potential for less parallel make
4 more
Joerg Mayer wrote:
What I'd like to do is put these dissectors that belong *to a single protocol*
into a subdirectory of that name, i.e. move them to
xmpp/packet-conference.c
xmpp/packet-conference.h
xmpp/packet-core.c
xmpp/packet-core.h
xmpp/packet-gtalk.c
xmpp/packet-gtalk.h
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jeff Morriss
jeff.morriss...@gmail.com wrote:
Joerg Mayer wrote:
What I'd like to do is put these dissectors that belong *to a single
protocol*
into a subdirectory of that name, i.e. move them to
xmpp/packet-conference.c
xmpp/packet-conference.h
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having all
the dissectors in the same directory. make -j 40 (on my 32-vCPU SPARC)
works better that way ;-).
I'm pretty sure an autotools-generated Makefile will already recurse
to fill the given job-count as
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like
having all
the dissectors in the same directory. make -j 40 (on my 32-vCPU
SPARC)
works better that way ;-).
I'm pretty sure an autotools-generated Makefile will already
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman a.bro...@bredband.net wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
all
the dissectors in the same directory. make -j 40 (on my 32-vCPU
SPARC)
works
Evan Huus wrote:
I've never understood why they're all prefixed with packet- anyways,
the fact that they're in epan/dissectors should be enough?
Because they were originally in the top-level directory (!, at least
until you consider how few dissectors Wireshark^WEthereal originally
had).
Hello List,
a discussion hidden in the bugtracker (id=7639) reminded me of something
I have wanted to ask for a while:
We have an (almost) flat structure in epan/dissectors/ and do additional
structuring via file names instead, e.g. look at
packet-xmpp-conference.c
packet-xmpp-conference.h
Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot the second half of my idea:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:19:06AM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
Hello List,
a discussion hidden in the bugtracker (id=7639) reminded me of something
I have wanted to ask for a while:
We have an (almost) flat structure in
Hello Joerg,
[snip]
What I'd like to do is put these dissectors that belong *to a single protocol*
into a subdirectory of that name, i.e. move them to
[snip]
xmpp/packet-other.c
xmpp/packet-other.h
xmpp/packet-utils.c
xmpp/packet-utils.h
These kind of file names could be in every
28 matches
Mail list logo
