Evan Huus skrev 2012-08-30 04:31:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
all
the dissectors in the same directory. "make -j 40" (on my 32-vCPU
SPARC)
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Anders Broman wrote:
> Evan Huus skrev 2012-08-30 04:31:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman
> wrote:
>
> Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
>
> Evan Huus wrote:
>
> I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
> all
> t
Hi
Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
files in the subdirectories?
As I wrote the opensafety package, I would like to split it up a
little bit to make it more maintainable, as well as include two new
subdissectors, which use the openSAFETY protocol, but are not
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall wrote:
> Hi
>
> Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
> files in the subdirectories?
I would assume you'd need 5 or 6 files at least to make a folder
worthwhile, but I don't think that's a hard rule. None of the groups
> -Original Message-
> From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
> boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
> Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
> epan/dissectors/
>
[Graham Bloice said]
Some folks have articulated the drawbacks (to them) of making these
changes but I haven't seen any actual advantages listed. Can anyone list
them as they see it?
+1
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
>> boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
>> Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
>> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
>> Subject: Re: [Wiresh
Evan Huus skrev 2012-08-30 16:27:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
S
On 30/08/2012 15:27, Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
To: Developer support list for Wiresha
Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wire
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Graham Bloice
>> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:34:05PM +0100, Mike Morrin wrote:
> If the directory structure is changed, I think that it would be sensible
> to group dissectors by the organisation responsible for the protocol
> specification, e.g, all GSM/UMTS/LTE dissectors would go in a 3GPP
> directory, etc.
.
[Graham Bloice said]
Some folks have articulated the drawbacks (to them) of making these
changes but I haven't seen any actual advantages listed. Can anyone list
them as they see it?
Well I used to work on packet-dcm for a while, and considering myself a
novice, it was painful to find 'my' fi
On 08/30/2012 04:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman wrote:
Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
Evan Huus wrote:
I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like having
all
the dissectors in the same directory. "make -j 40" (on my 32-vCPU
Evan Huus wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Unwieldy how? Except for having to know not to do "vi
epan/dissectors/" (for fear of too many pages of output) I don't
find the directory unwieldy.
That's part of it - I still do that accidentally on occasion. The
other
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> On 08/30/2012 04:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
>>>
Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ed Beroset wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Morriss
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> Unwieldy how? Except for having to know not to do "vi
>>> epan/dissectors/" (for fear of too many pages of output) I
>>> don't
>>> find the directory unwiel
Having re-read the entire thread, I've gathered the following list of
objections. I think it covers all of the concerns mentioned so far (in
no particular order):
1 potential for file-name collisions
2 increased difficulty in using tab-completion
3 potential for less parallel make
4 more complicat
18 matches
Mail list logo
