On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:59:43AM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:24:55PM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> > One disadvantage of that solution is, of course, that you'd only be able
> > to use it with versions of libpcap that support that split of parsing
> > and code generation.
>
> Actually, I'd prefer to just take the code and put it into wiretap, just
> as we are providing our own versions of vsnprintf etc in case they are
> missing.
That's not the same - we provide "snprintf()" etc. only to allow us to
use them on systems that lack them, not to provide an "snprintf()" that
has a particular minimum set of features.
If we make our own copy of libpcap:
When would we update it? When a new libpcap release comes out?
Whenever anything's checked into libpcap CVS? Whenever anything
interesting is checked into libpcap CVS? Etc..
What about WinPcap, which includes more stuff than just libpcap
- it includes drivers and a low-level library that's used by the
libpcap portion?
Would developers understand that
1) It's BSD-licensed, not GPLed, and all changes to our
copy will be BSD-licensed?
2) Any improvements we make *WILL* be propagated to
tcpdump.org's libpcap?
_______________________________________________
Ethereal-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
