The thing is that the plugins themselves are linked against libwireshark so by loading the plugins we're also loading libwireshark (albeit indirectly).
Maybe we need to really separate the wiretap plugins from the dissector plugins? Luis EG Ontanon wrote: > When I added the wiretap plugins I took care of not having to link > against epan, editcap and mergecap need only to link statically to the > very necessary objects. > I did this in r 21935 > Luis > > On Jan 17, 2008 10:28 PM, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jeff Morriss schrieb: >>> Ulf Lamping wrote: >>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: >>>> >>>>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=24123 >>>>> >>>>> User: morriss >>>>> Date: 2008/01/17 07:44 PM >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> Now that we have wiretap plugins, capinfos and editcap need to be linked >>>>> against libwireshark (because the non-wiretap plugins use it but also >>>>> init_progfile_dir() is in epan and they use that to load the plugins) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm not sure if I understand this completely. >>>> >>>> Does this mean that every program that want to use wiretap needs to link >>>> against libwireshark? >>>> >>> Hmmm, yes. >>> >>> Now that you say it that way it sounds worse than I was thinking it was. >>> >> Hmmm, yes, doesn't sound like a very clever direction we're heading here >> IMHO - might up ending with a big monolitic Wireshark ... >> >> In my personal comparison of wiretap plugins vs. small dedicated apps >> wiretap plugins would surely loose ;-) >> >> No way to seperate this? >> >> Regards, ULFL >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireshark-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
