On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:05 PM, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The tool.
> I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
> since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
> with upstream.
> That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
> even compile the IDL in wireshark to a working dissector.
If you mean "the tool as a whole", not just "the back end", then
1) there needs to be a spec for PIDL to which both PIDL processors
would conform, and it should be sufficiently complete that any of Samba's PIDL
files can be processed by a (non-buggy) conforming processor ("non-buggy"
meaning that making it actually work is the responsibility of the maintainers
of the processor);
2) the maintainers of the spec, i.e. the Samba people, should inform us
when the spec changes;
3) the maintainers of the Wireshark PIDL processor, i.e. the Wireshark
team, are responsible for changing that processor to follow the spec.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
