[Wireshark-dev] Get follwing Packets in a protocol dissector

2010-02-14 Thread Jan-Niklas Meier
Hi! I am currently working on a protocol dissector for a protocol, which is based on XML. The protocol is spoken inside a TCP stream. I am using the libxml to parse single requests and responses. I choose libxml because i want to check, if the XML is valid and because i need to parse the protocol q

Re: [Wireshark-dev] RTP Muxing with compressed header

2010-02-14 Thread Sourabh Rathor
Hi Anders, Its not there in the makefile. For RTP muxing with compressed header. I have made some changes to packet-nb_rtpmux.c as shown: Change 1. (In dissect_nb_rtpmux.c) if (rtpcompressdissector) { next_tvb = tvb_new_subset(tvb, offset+5,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] enum or #define?

2010-02-14 Thread Jaap Keuter
Hi, That would probably be #1. This option makes verification against a protocol spec / RFC easiest, also such values don't have to be sequential. Thanks, Jaap Send from my iPhone On 14 feb 2010, at 22:21, Kaul wrote: > Which one is better? > option 1: > #define SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST

Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev31832: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trunk/epan/dissectors/:packet-sflow.c

2010-02-14 Thread Joerg Mayer
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:37:51PM +0100, Anders Broman wrote: > Well stating your doubts and position didn't take that long did it :-) > Still do you propose to revert the checkin I don't mind either way... > I thought the current version had merit over the old one, if not it should > be reverted.

[Wireshark-dev] enum or #define?

2010-02-14 Thread Kaul
Which one is better? option 1: #define SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST 0 #define SSL_HND_CLIENT_HELLO 1 ... or perhaps, option 2: enum { SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST, SSL_HND_CLIENT_HELLO, }; ... and then (in both cases): const value_string ssl_31_handshake_type[] = { { SSL_HND_HELLO_REQU

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark 1.2 on OSX-10.5-PowerPC

2010-02-14 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of OSX-10.5-PowerPC on Wireshark 1.2. Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.2/builders/OSX-10.5-PowerPC/builds/40 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.2/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-ppc Build Reason:

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark 1.0 on OSX-10.5-ppc

2010-02-14 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of OSX-10.5-ppc on Wireshark 1.0. Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.0/builders/OSX-10.5-ppc/builds/14 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.0/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-ppc Build Reason: Build So

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on OSX-10.5-PowerPC

2010-02-14 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of OSX-10.5-PowerPC on Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/OSX-10.5-PowerPC/builds/1122 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-ppc Build Reas

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark 1.0 on Windows-XP-x86

2010-02-14 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Windows-XP-x86 on Wireshark 1.0. Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.0/builders/Windows-XP-x86/builds/14 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.0/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-xp-x86 Build Reason: Bu