BTW, it appears that this has come up before in the past (2009):
https://$1.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/200910/msg00123.html
but it doesn't seem like a resolution was made.. but this post has a
short-term workaround:
http://seclists.org/wireshark/2009/Oct/286
I am going to try this out,
Hi Jeff,
I am on Revision: 36615
So it seems like I am past that revision.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.comwrote:
George Nychis wrote:
BTW, it appears that this has come up before in the past (2009):
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:27 AM, George Nychis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Jeff Morriss jeff.morriss...@gmail.com
wrote:
George Nychis wrote:
BTW, it appears that this has come up before in the past (2009):
https://$1.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/200910/msg00123.html
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
Of course, none of that addresses any configuration tests we might do that
involve compiling *and* running code; if we do any of that, cross-compilation
is even harder to make work.
And we do, in fact, do tests such as that. For example, we
