[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please do not confuse the bug that I may have introduced, and the > wireshark/glib bugs. > THERE ARE NO WIRESHARK BUGS THAT YOU'VE FIXED (beside some very unimportant memory leaks)!!!
There are "crashes" in the dumpcap code as you've not used it as designed. Then you've fixed the newly occuring problems at the wrong places. Randomly setting a pointer to NULL somewhere in the code and waiting for the program to crash would show exactly the same problems. I won't give you any further examples as I will only get in return that the WS code was badly designed before and there are bugs in other pieces of the code that needs to be fixed for your code to run. > Where are the bugs you find that are not related to glib ? > Could you explain me why you treat the code as "buggy by design" ? Be > constructive and propose something better. > I was constructive several times and only got the response that you disagree with my (and other core developers) points of view. With "buggy by design" I mean that you seem to simply ignore how the code was written before, partially fix problems introduced by your own changes and then complain that the Wireshark code needs to be fixed. I just don't want to spend any more time discussing on that level, Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
