Hi,
Le 4 nov. 2013 à 09:24, Matthieu Patou m...@samba.org a écrit :
On 11/03/2013 11:37 AM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi,
there is also a small issue spotted by checkAPIs.pl script (found in tools
folder) leading to a failure of the buildbot:
Error: the name for
Message-
From: Matthieu Patou m...@samba.org
To: mmann78 mman...@netscape.net; wireshark-dev wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Cc: abartlet abart...@samba.org; samba-technical samba-techni...@samba.org
Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 3:25 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
On 11/03/2013 08:26 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Matthieu,
I committed 0010-frsrpc-Regenerate-frsrpc-due-to-changes-in-the-pidl-.patch and
0016-Regenerate-the-dnserver.patch with the necessary changes to get it to
compile on Windows to r53067. As the commit message mentions, I think the
On 11/03/2013 11:37 AM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi,
there is also a small issue spotted by checkAPIs.pl script (found in tools
folder) leading to a failure of the buildbot:
Error: the name for
hf_frsrpc_frsrpc_FrsVerifyPromotionParent___ndr_guid_size
: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
On 10/27/2013 09:16 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
I may have slightly misspoke about the patch in bug 9301 causing the
compile errors, but the patch in bug 9301 had the same compile
-
From: Matthieu Patou m...@samba.org
To: mmann78 mman...@netscape.net; wireshark-dev
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Cc: abartlet abart...@samba.org; samba-technical
samba-techni...@samba.org
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
On 10
26, 2013 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
On 10/21/2013 12:48 PM,mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Checked most of the patches into r52744
(http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=52744)
Didn't integrate
0010-frsrpc-Regenerate-frsrpc-due
On 10/21/2013 12:48 PM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Checked most of the patches into r52744
(http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=52744)
Didn't integrate
0010-frsrpc-Regenerate-frsrpc-due-to-changes-in-the-pidl-.patch
0016-Regenerate-the-dnserver.patch
due to compile
-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
On 10/21/2013 12:48 PM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Checked most of the patches into r52744
(http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=52744)
Didn't integrate
0010-frsrpc-Regenerate-frsrpc-due-to-changes-in-the-pidl-.patch
0016
On 10/21/2013 04:27 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:48:35PM -0400, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Checked most of the patches into r52744
(http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=52744)
Didn't integrate
@wireshark.org; Samba Technical
samba-techni...@samba.org; Andrew Bartlett abart...@samba.org
Sent: Mon, Oct 21, 2013 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
Hi Joerg
On 10/07/2013 10:16 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0700, Matthieu
...@samba.org
Sent: Mon, Oct 21, 2013 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
Hi Joerg
On 10/07/2013 10:16 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
That being said I did a bit of homework yesterday to fix
To: Joerg Mayer jma...@loplof.de
Cc: Developer support list for Wireshark wireshark-dev@wireshark.org; Samba
Technical samba-techni...@samba.org; Andrew Bartlett abart...@samba.org
Sent: Mon, Oct 21, 2013 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark PIDL generated dissectors
Hi Joerg
On 10/07/2013 10
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:48:35PM -0400, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
Checked most of the patches into r52744
(http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=52744)
Didn't integrate
0010-frsrpc-Regenerate-frsrpc-due-to-changes-in-the-pidl-.patch
On 10/07/2013 12:47 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
disclaimerIn reading this mail it sounds somewhat harsh. It's not
intended that way but I'm somewhat sleep deprived right now and don't
want to spend the time rephrasing it./disclaimer
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:13:03AM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
On 10/07/2013 03:05 PM, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
The tool.
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
even compile the
On 10/06/2013 01:19 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:29:50AM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
For me there is only one pidl and it's in the samba repository. Then
we have a 2 big use case:
* Samba
* Wireshark
By the way I take the chance of this thread to underline that it's
very
On 10/06/13 04:29, Matthieu Patou wrote:
By the way it would be nice if other dev in wireshark understand the
term autogenerated because I spotted on the packet-dcerpc-frsrpc.c
not less than 5 manual changes since the last time ronnie pushed the
last version of the regenerated file:
I sent a
On 10/07/13 03:13, Matthieu Patou wrote:
Also maybe it would be nice that I can modify the page
http://wiki.wireshark.org/Pidl to have a simple guide there too, this
page is way too complicated and ihmo not completely accurate.
I'm not sure if I'm reading your statement correctly or not but if
Joerg Mayer skrev 2013-10-07 21:47:
disclaimerIn reading this mail it sounds somewhat harsh. It's not
intended that way but I'm somewhat sleep deprived right now and don't
want to spend the time rephrasing it./disclaimer
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:13:03AM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
Which
On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:04 PM, ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com wrote:
There is very little overlap between samba needs and wireshark needs for PIDL.
It is probably better to continue running two separate forks of PIDL,
one for samba and one for wireshark.
Switching to samba PIDL
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:57:12PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:04 PM, ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com wrote:
There is very little overlap between samba needs and wireshark needs for
PIDL.
It is probably better to continue running two separate forks of PIDL,
On Oct 7, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Joerg Mayer jma...@loplof.de wrote:
If I understand it correctly, he is talking about the backend:
Meaning PIDL, the tool
I think it'd be a mistake to fork PIDL-the-language (or the protocol
descriptions written in PIDL-the-language) unless there are some
The tool.
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
even compile the IDL in wireshark to a working dissector.
On Mon,
On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:05 PM, ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com wrote:
The tool.
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 03:38:34PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
even
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
That being said I did a bit of homework yesterday to fix the
situation I have a branch fix_pidl in my gitorious repository that I
maintain for wireshark:
https://gitorious.org/wireshark/wireshark/commits/fix_pidl
With this
On Oct 7, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Joerg Mayer jma...@loplof.de wrote:
IMO, the Samba team has done a rather good job maintaining the pidl source
(including the wireshark backend) - we just did a not make very good use
of it :-( I also think that the maintainership of the pidl sources including
the
On 10/03/2013 08:04 PM, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
What do you propose?
There is very little overlap between samba needs and wireshark needs for PIDL.
It is probably better to continue running two separate forks of PIDL,
one for samba and one for wireshark.
Switching to samba PIDL seems to be a
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Matthieu Patou m...@samba.org wrote:
Last but not least I will grab the opportunity of having some wireshark devs
listening to complain about the lack of feedback when publishing patches in
wireshark's bugzilla.
I tried several time in the past to get my
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:29:50AM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
For me there is only one pidl and it's in the samba repository. Then
we have a 2 big use case:
* Samba
* Wireshark
By the way I take the chance of this thread to underline that it's
very hard to get the attention of the
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 10:55 -0400, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
The check_col function in the Wireshark source has been deprecated for
awhile, but never officially removed. I've been modifying the source
(removing calls) so that it can be officially removed. The last big hurdle
was the
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 19:44 -0700, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
Cool.
And we contact you when samba-PIDL no longer can generate compileable
wireshark dissectors?
Contacting the Samba Team would seem to be the correct approach.
Given Matthieu was working on generated dissectors only last week, it
Cool.
And we contact you when samba-PIDL no longer can generate compileable
wireshark dissectors?
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Andrew Bartlett abart...@samba.org wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 10:55 -0400, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
The check_col function in the Wireshark source has been
These are probably better maintained by wireshark than samba.
I may be able to try taking a look at your patch during the weekend.
Please ping me if I forget.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:55 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote:
The check_col function in the Wireshark source has been deprecated for
What do you propose?
There is very little overlap between samba needs and wireshark needs for PIDL.
It is probably better to continue running two separate forks of PIDL,
one for samba and one for wireshark.
Switching to samba PIDL seems to be a lot of work for miniscule gain.
And who will do the
The check_col function in the Wireshark source has been deprecated for awhile,
but never officially removed. I've been modifying the source (removing calls)
so that it can be officially removed. The last big hurdle was the DCE/RPC
generated dissector files. I've had a difficult time trying
The check_col function in the Wireshark source has been deprecated for awhile,
but never officially removed. I've been modifying the source (removing calls)
so that it can be officially removed. The last big hurdle was the DCE/RPC
generated dissector files. I've had a difficult time trying
38 matches
Mail list logo
