[Wireshark-dev] New syntax for range support in membership operator: tcp.port in {1662-1664}

2018-04-15 Thread Peter Wu
Hi, Laura requested support for ranges for the "in" display filter operator in bug 1480 which seems like a reasonable idea. I have a prototype patch working here: https://code.wireshark.org/review/26945 The initial implementation converted "f in {a-b}" to "f >= a && f <= b", but this turned out t

Re: [Wireshark-dev] New syntax for range support in membership operator: tcp.port in {1662-1664}

2018-04-15 Thread Jaap Keuter
Hi, In fact I would suggest to consider double dot (‘..’) in this case. Reasons: * It is a sufficiently unique operator * The minus causes too many conflicts, as you have stated * triple dot (‘...’, i.e. Ellipsis) is too prone to ‘autocorrection’ to the ellipsis symbol, causing copy-paste problem

Re: [Wireshark-dev] New syntax for range support in membership operator: tcp.port in {1662-1664}

2018-04-15 Thread Jasper Bongertz
Hi, +1 for the double dot syntax. Cheers, Jasper Sunday, April 15, 2018, 3:03:53 PM, you wrote: > Hi, > In fact I would suggest to consider double dot (‘..’) in this case. > Reasons: > * It is a sufficiently unique operator > * The minus causes too many conflicts, as you have stated > * triple

Re: [Wireshark-dev] New syntax for range support in membership operator: tcp.port in {1662-1664}

2018-04-15 Thread Roland Knall
+1 for the double dot On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Jasper Bongertz wrote: > Hi, > > +1 for the double dot syntax. > > Cheers, > Jasper > > > Sunday, April 15, 2018, 3:03:53 PM, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *> Hi, > In fact I would suggest to consider double dot (‘..’) in this

Re: [Wireshark-dev] RPM generation

2018-04-15 Thread Anders Broman
According to git log the patches seems to be there… Regards Anders Broman commit c369c295097f4377527e989df1658effb6497735 Author: Dario Lombardo Date: Fri Apr 13 08:55:05 2018 +0200 RPM: restore the bindir in openSUSE before packing. Change-Id: I6e60d1a299528c0f1603b56704a8c47f18c66d08

Re: [Wireshark-dev] RPM generation

2018-04-15 Thread Dario Lombardo
Ok, I got the point. I always built the rpm from a build dir under the source dir. With your approach, the rpm-package target fails because of the lack of a parent git directory. It expects to retrieve the current version using 'git describe', and it can't because it has no clue on where the source

Re: [Wireshark-dev] RPM generation

2018-04-15 Thread Anders Broman
Den sön 15 apr. 2018 23:05Dario Lombardo skrev: > Ok, I got the point. I always built the rpm from a build dir under the > source dir. > With your approach, the rpm-package target fails because of the lack of a > parent git directory. It expects to retrieve the current version using 'git > descri