Guy Harris wrote:
On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
Shouldn't that have then appeared in the 11/09 "current" tar? I just
grabbed that and it doesn't seem to have been there. Operator error
on my part? Grabbing the wrong tar file or something?
It was checked in, but perhaps
On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
Shouldn't that have then appeared in the 11/09 "current" tar? I
just grabbed that and it doesn't seem to have been there. Operator
error on my part? Grabbing the wrong tar file or something?
It was checked in, but perhaps the tarball was crea
Shouldn't that have then appeared in the 11/09 "current" tar? I just
grabbed that and it doesn't seem to have been there. Operator error on
my part? Grabbing the wrong tar file or something?
Part of it might be that there is no 11/09 tar - the last "current" appears to
be 10/09
rick
-
This
Guy Harris wrote:
On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
The following change bumps a few limits in scanner.l so it will be
processed by the lex which ships with HP-UX. It is based on
libpcap-2005.10.09. While I was here, I went through to make sure
that utilization of these things
On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
The following change bumps a few limits in scanner.l so it will be
processed by the lex which ships with HP-UX. It is based on
libpcap-2005.10.09. While I was here, I went through to make sure
that utilization of these things was no more than ~
The following change bumps a few limits in scanner.l so it will be processed by
the lex which ships with HP-UX. It is based on libpcap-2005.10.09. While I was
here, I went through to make sure that utilization of these things was no more
than ~80%:
$ lex -t scanner.l > /dev/null
6056/7600 node
