2014-11-20 9:53 GMT+01:00 Maarten Bezemer <maarten.bezemer@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thursday 13 November 2014 15:15:26 you wrote:
>> On Thursday 13 November 2014 13:56:26 Graham Bloice wrote:
>> > While I'm all for making life easier for devs, if no-one else has
>> > identified this as a need, i.e. only you find it worthwhile, then we will
>> > end up with stuff not generally used in the repo and then who will be
>> > maintaining these bits of CMake?
>>
>> [1] is an attempt I found to have out of source builds. But it never got fed
>> back to Wireshark and consists (eventually) outdated scripts. By
>> integrating such functionality, keeps the development scripts up-to-date.
>>
>> I am also willing to write a (wiki) document explaining the out of source
>> builds (when my patches get accepted) to help out others as well. As the
>> current information about this subject on the Internet is very minimal.
>>
>> The maintenance of my patches is not too hard I think. I mainly use (cmake)
>> scripts that are already available. The changes I made are to make them more
>> generic, e.g. by getting rid of hard-coded paths. All scripts are
>> also/already used when Wireshark itself gets build.
>
> Is there anything left for me to do or to explain?
> I would like gain some momentum either direction (approved or abandoned), so I
> know whether my current (out of source) plug-in implementation can be used at
> work or not.
I was waiting for Jörg to comment on the change, but I have submitted
it instead:
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/5316/
Cheers,
Balint
