On Thursday 20 November 2014 13:26:29 Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 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 fed back to Wireshark and consists (eventually) outdated scripts.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/
I saw, also that my two related patches are abandoned.
I was wondering about my actual 'out of source' patches.
But as already mentioned by Graham Bloice, there are some (lack of) spare time
issues. So, I will just wait until time permits to proper look at/review them.
Regards,
Maarten
