-----Original Message-----
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of João Valverde
Sent: den 22 november 2017 13:07
To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] OSX build fails
On 22-11-2017 11:26, João Valverde wrote:
>
>
> On 22-11-2017 11:02, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, João Valverde
>> <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22-11-2017 08:37, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
>> Might be a stupid question but on my account, only Linux
>> machines are now capable of building Wireshark out of the box
>> with autotools on default, right?
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "on default", but it seems unlikely
>> that anyone could build Wireshark without having to install at
>> least
>> one dependency.
>>
>> BSDs usually supply a gmake command for GNU Make. Not sure if it
>> is
>> installed by default.
>>
>>
>>
>> Installing a dependency is one thing, and fine by me. This includes
>> installing a newer version of make. But for certain builders, that
>> might not be an option (older Linux systems) as no packages might
>> exist, and they will have to build from source. In those cases,
>> building the make-system from source, just to use autotools is too
>> much to ask for in my book. All those people have already an
>> alternative in place though with cmake, but still, autotools sets the
>> bar a little higher then cmake, and that is in my opinion not a good
>> idea if both systems should be equal by design. So if they should be
>> equal, that would also require the same prerequisites, or at least
>> the same level of obtainability.
>
> That would be "installing a newer version of make" on OSX because of
> licensing issues.
>
> I don't understand either your logic of build systems "equal by design".
> I would hope not, that seems kind of pointless.
>
> We are giving a lot of thought to ancient systems with all sorts of
> restrictions. I don't disagree with that, it's generally a good thing
> to be considerate, but it remains to be seen the impact on systems
> other than OSX.
>
> For OSX please use CMake instead.
>
>And I would like to answer a point that is frankly starting to grate on me (please don't take that personally, it's not).
>
>If you are installing Wireshark dependencies from binary repositories you should be installing Wireshark from a binary package too. If your vendor does not provide one >complain to them.
>
>If you are building Wireshark from source presumably you can also install dependencies from source. It's not black magic.
>
>Having a binary repository is in no way a requirement to use a UNIX-like system.
I think it's perhaps a case of "that was not how it used to be".
In the general case on a server shared by many it may be OK to change a self contained package ( e.g that package can use (most of) the dependencies on that system)
to a newer one than what the distribution require but more difficult to change depending packages used by several applications on the server. Also consider the case where
The "newer" Wireshak package is distributed in RPM form to many users it may not be so easy to provide RPMs for a lot of dependencies too.
It also feels like we are raising the bar on building and distribute Wireshark on older systems. Which may be OK but perhaps better done in 3.0, I think we also
Need to set the level of required packages in 3.0 and keep at that level for some time.
Just my two cents.
Anders
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
