On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:32 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was more
focused on the Wireshark (packet) context menu, where I was less inclined to
make changes. This however seems like a more valid use case to consider. My
Le 13 juil. 2015 3:32 PM, mman...@netscape.net a écrit :
I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was
more focused on the Wireshark (packet) context menu, where I was less
inclined to make changes. This however seems like a more valid use case to
consider. My question
Le 13 juil. 2015 3:03 AM, mman...@netscape.net a écrit :
With:
https://code.wireshark.org/review/9508/
https://code.wireshark.org/review/9610/
(and already submitted https://code.wireshark.org/review/9602/)
I consider this feature complete enough for now. If Qt wants to
provide a better
I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was more
focused on the Wireshark (packet) context menu, where I was less inclined to
make changes. This however seems like a more valid use case to consider. My
question back would be - what string should be used by tshark?
Hey Michael,
Are there are any mnemonic option letters available?
Would use of long options be the appropriate solution in this case?
A few years ago I had a need for some additional options for a hacked up
version of tshark. Because there were not enough sensible option letters
available I
El mié., 8 jul. 2015 a las 19:17, Graham Bloice (
graham.blo...@trihedral.com) escribió:
Some recent commits, 0997129 and c00e469 should have fixed this.
Thanks. It works now.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Command-line option sounds good, but it will probably take longer to figure out
the option letter (how many do we have left?) than the functionality that does
the enable/disable. Suggestions for option letter to use? Have we gone
beyond just letters yet? A letter for each enable and disable
