On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:14:28PM -0400, Maynard, Chris wrote:
> Perhaps a compromise? Like submitting a bug for each letter of the
> alphabet and list all dissectors affected beginning with that letter.
> This way, at most 26 bugs will be opened (apart from the ones I already
> opened)? Then pa
Hi,
After checking a few BUGS I see a problem with this like with bug
"packet-bssap.c display filter field problems"
- { "Message Type", "bsap.pdu_type",
+ { "Message Type", "bssap.bsap.pdu_type",
(more changes like this)
Formally the change is correct but this is a bsap PDU so
Munenori Ohuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for review_for_checkin:
Bug 1790: packet-cisco-erspan.c enhancements
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1790
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org
Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has granted Chris Maynard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s request for review_for_checkin:
Bug 1789: packet-c*.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1789
--- Additional Comments from Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECT
attached the makefile (nmake) I used to build libsmi as a dll.
inside the .zip there's the .def I wrote to have it linking against wireshark.
Note: there's one tool that does not compile without tweaking but the
library compiles OK.
X:> cd libsmi-0.4.5\win
X:> nmake -f makefile libsmi.dll
Tomorr
Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has granted Stephen Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s request for review_for_checkin:
Bug 1758: For Review - Added ATM support for Visual Networks file type
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1758
--- Additional Comments from Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL
Obviously my preference would be to change them, but I'll let you experts
decide that, I guess. That's what I thought Guy indicated in his first
response, so that's why I got started, but if you want to think about it some
more than I'm in no hurry.
> I think, however, that before you spend t
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>> I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this,
>> somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all
>> on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a
>> shame if you sp
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this,
> somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all
> on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a
> shame if you spent weeks on it and we had to say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
> review_for_checkin:
> Bug 1789: packet-c*.c display filter field problems
> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1789
>
> --- Additional Comments from Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this better
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1789: packet-c*.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1789
--- Additional Comments from Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is this better or still not quite what you're expectin
Maynard, Chris wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure he meant that, especially since Richard's follow-up
> (http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200708/msg00432.html)
> indicated that he wanted me to send patches for each one.
>
> I am basically going down the alphabet here, tediously looking for
> d
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:13:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I happened to notice that this dissector had 2 duplicate display filter
>> fields.
>> That's only because there are only 2 fields! It will be nearly impossible
>> to
>> find duplicates in other dissectors
Hmm, I'm not sure he meant that, especially since Richard's follow-up
(http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200708/msg00432.html)
indicated that he wanted me to send patches for each one.
I am basically going down the alphabet here, tediously looking for
display filter fields that don't lo
Hi John,
Added your request to the TODO file in the unistim plugin directory.
Thanx,
Jaap
J P wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to add the UNISTIM CMD text for each UNISTIM
> command in a packet to the Info field of the Decode Summary?
>
> For example display the following for the UNIST
I guess Guy thought you were just to report them, not to provide patches.
I would go for a single patch.
On 8/23/07, Maynard, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That directly contradicts what Guy Harris asked me to do earlier, namely
> "I'd open bugs for each dissector (so we don't have to fix the
That directly contradicts what Guy Harris asked me to do earlier, namely
"I'd open bugs for each dissector (so we don't have to fix them all at
once to close the bug).". His thread in which he wrote that is here:
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200708/msg00432.html
Can you guys pleas
the wiki page suggest you ONLY use nmake/cl/link from VS8 (true name of
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition),
but make sure NOT use nmake/cl/link from 2003 server SDK R2 under windows
2000.
Hope this will help.
/Yin
On 8/22/07, Graham Bloice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greg Bell wrote:
> > I gues
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:00:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1785
...
> Incorrect display filter field naming convention.
Please try not to open a bug for each and every problem of this type:
It makes it much more time intensive to review
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1788: packet-bssap.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1788
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wires
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:13:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I happened to notice that this dissector had 2 duplicate display filter
> fields.
> That's only because there are only 2 fields! It will be nearly impossible to
> find duplicates in other dissectors with large numbers of fields
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1786: packet-llc.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1786
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wiresha
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1781: packet-ansi_637.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1781
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wi
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1784: packet-ansi_tcap.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1784
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.w
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1778: packet-aim-sst.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1778
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wir
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1780: packet-amr.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1780
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wiresha
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1779: packet-aim-userlookup.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1779
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1785: packet-dcerpc-atsvc.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1785
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://ww
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1783: packet-ansi_map.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1783
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wi
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1782: packet-ansi_a.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1782
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wire
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1777: packet-aim-ssi.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1777
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wir
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1776: packet-aim-signon.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1776
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1775: packet-aim-messaging.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1775
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://w
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1774: packet-aim-location.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1774
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://ww
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1773: packet-aim-generic.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www
Francois-Xavier Le Bail schrieb:
> --- Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it should just be more intelligent, and if
>> one port is < 1024 and
>> the other isn't, just resolve the one less than
>> 1024?
>>
>> On the other hand that doesn't solve the problem in
>> the
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1772: packet-aim-buddylist.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1772
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://w
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1771: packet-aim-bos.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1771
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wir
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1770: packet-aim-admin.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1770
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.w
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1769: packet-slowprotocols.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1769
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://w
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1768: packet-ieee8011.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1768
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wi
Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for
review_for_checkin:
Bug 1767: packet-3com-xns.c display filter field problems
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1767
--- Additional Comments from Chris Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I happened to notice that this dissector had 2 d
Hi,
Add its name to the DISSECTOR_SUPPORT_SRC symbol in Makefile.common.
Thanx,
Jaap
Amit Paliwal wrote:
>
> i am writing a plugin which contains *packet-xxx.c *file and i am
> writing one *packet-xxx-ie.h *file which contains some relevent
> prototype declarations of function used and i am
Hi,
As defined in README.developer:
static hf_register_info hf[] = {
{ &hf_PROTOABBREV_FIELDABBREV,
{ "FIELDNAME", "PROTOABBREV.FIELDABBREV",
FIELDTYPE, FIELDBASE, FIELDCONVERT, BITMASK,
"FIELDDES
Hi,
Would it be possible to add the UNISTIM CMD text for each UNISTIM command in
a packet to the Info field of the Decode Summary?
For example display the following for the UNISTIM commands shown below:
33 3.204370 x.x.x.x y.y.y.y UNISTIM Payload seq - 0xC469, Aggregate
Unistim , Display Manag
Graham Bloice wrote:
> The buildbot is reporting a permission problem.
It looks like the GUI crashed during the "capture 10 packets" test, and
Windows popped up the "Wireshark has encountered a problem..." dialog.
I'll tweak the error reporting settings on the builder.
__
OK, I will start submitting bugs and patches for each one individually as I
find time.
I'll use Guy's recommendation for naming fields, which is also my preference
(even if I mistyped it earlier). So, for a dissector like packet-aim-admin.c,
all fields will be prefixed with "aim_admin.", and s
On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Maynard, Chris wrote:
> I was looking at the display filter fields recently and noticed that
> there seem to be some display filter field naming mistakes/typos.
> Basically, there are a lot of naming inconsistencies, and in at least
> one case, no name at all. Here
Yes, if someone contributes the code for an unistim tap and the tap
listener for voip calls.
On 8/23/07, J P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if it would be possible to get UNISTIM VoIP calls detected
> by Wireshark in the Statistics > VoIP Calls window?
>
> Thanx,
>
> John
> _
Hi,
I was wondering if it would be possible to get UNISTIM VoIP calls detected
by Wireshark in the Statistics > VoIP Calls window?
Thanx,
John
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshar
The buildbot is reporting a permission problem.
--
Regards,
Graham Bloice
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
Guy Harris wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Maynard, Chris wrote:
>> There are a lot more, but for brevity, I haven't listed them all here.
>> Is reporting this on the developer's list sufficient, or should I
>> open a
>> bug for all/some of them?
>
> I'd open bugs for each dissector (so w
Unfortunately, I can't help answering this question (yet)... perhaps
someone else has the answer.
On 8/23/07, Илья Куделин <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> thanx for links, i found some functions.
> but new question is arise. how can i know the sequense number of last packet
> in my protocol?
>
> >
Also, this new item:
http://www.wireshark.org/news/20070702b.html
provides a link to an article which tells you how to develop a plugin
dissector from scratch. It might help.
On 8/23/07, Abhik Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it should be in Makefile.common. If you have a look at the
>
I think it should be in Makefile.common. If you have a look at the
DOCSIS plugin it has lot of .c and .h files.
Hope this helps
Abhik
On 8/23/07, Amit Paliwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i am writing a plugin which contains packet-xxx.c file and i am writing one
> packet-xxx-ie.h file which co
i am writing a plugin which contains packet-xxx.c file and i am writing
one packet-xxx-ie.h file which contains some relevent prototype
declarations of function used and i am defining these functions in
packet-xxx-ie.c.
i have included packet-xxx-ie.h in packet-xxx.c file because of which
pac
thanx for links, i found some functions.
but new question is arise. how can i know the sequense number of last packet
in my protocol?
On 8/21/07, Abhik Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The following links should help you get started...
> > http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsdg_html_chunked/ChDi
57 matches
Mail list logo
