Evan Huus skrev 2013-03-01 22:53:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evan Huus skrev 2013-03-01 22:03:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evan Huus skrev 2013-03-01 21:38:
Not entirely sure this sort of thing is necessary - lemon is not our
tool, so even if Wireshark switches to C++ there's no immediately
obvious reason to start compiling other people's code (which we happen
to use) in C++ as well.
Evan
It's nice to get rid of the warnings regardless, isn't it?
For tools with an upstream maintainer independent of Wireshark (as is
the case with lemon - it is maintained by sqlite for some reason) I
think it is generally better to avoid carrying a delta with upstream
unless absolutely necessary. It may be worth submitting your changes
to sqlite, then pulling a new version of lemon once they merge the
changes.
This is actually copying changes from upstream to Wireshark unfortunately
the two has diverged
and strict back porting isn't possible(?)
I wouldn't have expected them to diverge at all, although we may no
longer have the latest upstream version.
Does anybody know why we might have needed local changes to our copy of lemon?
It might just be lack of trying to synchronise, but I tried to push
changes upstream a couple of years ago and the interest was minimal...
/Anders
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
