On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:14:56PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > I realize that our agreement on multiple line output may have been just > on the mailing list (i.e. not documented anywhere) and was long enough > ago that newer developers didn't even know about it, so I'm not trying > to place specific blame. I think the real solution to this problem is > to create another flag, orthogonal to -v, to say whether any printer > should do multi-line output or not.
Tethereal uses "-V" to specify that the multi-line detailed dissection of the packet, rather than the single-line summary, should be printed. (snoop uses "-v" for this.) We should perhaps write down some rules on the type of output tcpdump printers should report - including an indication that, even without multi-line output, tcpdump should supply a reasonable amount of information for packets. > There should probably also be > support functions to make it easier to write printers that want to use > multi-line output. If we have an explicit "multi-line output" flag, perhaps we should also arrange that printers such as "ip_print()" not print anything after any printers they call return - print stuff out *before* calling the printer. Right now, if a printer called by "ip_print()" or something it calls prints multiple lines, flags such as the DF flag will get printed on the *last* line, which might not be what we want. - This is the TCPDUMP workers list. It is archived at http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/index.html To unsubscribe use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
