Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Tough Situation, Should I Switch Back?
From: "Bryant Eastham" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:24:50 -0600
Joerg Mayer wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:21:18PM -0600, Bryant Eastham wrote: > > Let me apologize in advance for being such a pain about this. I have > > asked for a tag, or whatever you want to call it, for the 0.99.1pre1 > > release several times now. I have received no direct response from any > > core developer as to why this is not a good thing. In fact, on that > > issue, I have received no response at all. > I currently see three reasons why this hasn't happened: > 1) Why can't you tell your engineers to checkout a specific revision of the trunk (or provide them with a > complete archive by doing a "make dist")? > 2) Supporting projects that are "closed source" has low priority. Why don't you provide the source to all > of the wireshark community? > 3) Gerald is the one who does the tagging - and he has been moving/getting settled in a new environment. Although this issue has now been resolved with Gerald's last plans, I feel that the answers to these questions are important enough to answer: #1: I certainly can build my own dist on Windows (in fact, I do, every night, in order to build my plugins). I could then post it, support downloads, and in short replicate everything that I find nice about Wireshark.org. Why? Are you saying that the answer to my question (which deals with repeatable builds, not building in general) is to have all my engineers running TIP - or even worse to have my users build it themselves and then try to support them? I could accept that answer, even though I may disagree, had it been given. How about posting some information about the build so that I can replicate it? What branch was it built from? What revision was it? Remember my original question dealt precisely with my ability (or lack thereof) of doing exactly what you suggest. There was no information available that would have allowed me to replicate 0.99.1pre1. #2: I don't know that there is anything in my request that is limited to support "closed source". My plugins happen to be, but I'm sure that this problem will be (or is) seen by others. Possibly they are able to submit their source and not worry about it. I can't. At the same time, I think it would be a huge mistake to let any "anti-closed-source" bias creep into the ways that Wireshark is released with respect to plugins. The core developers can make the call, but it seems that the "internal/proprietary protocol" group is one that (in time) can only help Wireshark, not hurt it. If I were requesting that some special feature be added to support something that others would not benefit from, then I whole-heartedly agree with laughing in my face. If all I request is a tag, then please don't hold my companies IP policies against me! (Not that it would help anyone at this point to be able to decode some internal protocols!) Hopefully you can see from my solving the tshark bug recently as proof of my desire to help this project in any way that I am able. I am sorry that I cannot do more at the moment. #3: Thank you! I completely understand! A simple message a week ago stating that would have shut me up. The lack of answer, plus the other messages floating around only led to escalation. Bryant
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Patch] to voip_calls.c (bug 892 again)
- Next by Date: [Wireshark-dev] Copy over personal profile files from Ethereal to Wireshark now done in Win32 NSIS
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Tough Situation, Should I Switch Back?
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] listen_rtp plugin