Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Guy Harris
On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:42 PM, Motonori Shindo wrote: > Unn, that's weird. I simply did "svn diff" against the up-to-date SVN > repository on MacOS X 10.6.7 with svn version 1.6.5 (r38866). SVN 1.6.5 is older than the version of SVN that comes with 10.6.7: $ sw_vers ProductName:Mac OS X Produ

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Motonori Shindo
Guy, Jaap, and Andres, Unn, that's weird. I simply did "svn diff" against the up-to-date SVN repository on MacOS X 10.6.7 with svn version 1.6.5 (r38866). I will look into it further. Thank you all for your help. Regards, --- Motonori Shindo 2011/4/6 Guy Harris : > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:04 P

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Guy Harris
On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:04 PM, Motonori Shindo wrote: > Anders, > > Ooops, my brain seems to stay in the days of 5 years ago, when we used > to post patches on the dev mailing list. I will open the case in > bugzilla. I don't know why the patch doesn't apply. I will check it. Part of the problem

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Motonori Shindo
Anders, Ooops, my brain seems to stay in the days of 5 years ago, when we used to post patches on the dev mailing list. I will open the case in bugzilla. I don't know why the patch doesn't apply. I will check it. Sorry for the inconvenience. --- Motonori Shindo 2011/4/6 Anders Broman : > Motono

[Wireshark-dev] Bug in ViewVC

2011-04-05 Thread Jaap Keuter
Hi Gerald, Just to let you know that when accessing the full repository whenever you want to view a file you run into an exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/web/anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc-1.1.9/lib/viewvc.py", line 4461, in main request.run_viewvc() File "/web/anons

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Anders Broman
Motonori Shindo skrev 2011-04-06 06:55: Hi, Current NetFlow V9/IPFIX dissector treats IN_BYTES (IE=1) and IN_PERMANENT_BYTES (IE=85) exactly in the same way. The same applies to IN_PKTS (IE=2) and IN_PERMANENT_PKTS (IE=86). However, IN_BYTES/IN_PKTS and IN_PERMANENT_BYTES/IN_PERMANENT_PKTS have

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Jaap Keuter
Hi, This would normally have to go through Bugzilla, so to better track and comment on patches. This patch for instance lacks line numbers. --- epan/dissectors/packet-netflow.c(revision 36487) +++ epan/dissectors/packet-netflow.c(working copy) @@ -%ld,%ld +%ld,%ld @@ static int h

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Q re a possible bug for someone familiar with packet-ansi_637.c

2011-04-05 Thread Jaap Keuter
On 04/05/2011 03:49 PM, Chris Maynard wrote: Bill Meier writes: In the proto_reg_handoff_ansi_637() code the variable 'ansi_637_trans_app_handle' is set but never used. (Coverity 835). My suspicion is that this handle should be used in the following iso 'ansi_637_trans_handle': /* Diss

[Wireshark-dev] Permanent Bytes/Packets handling enhancement in NetFlowV9/IPFIX

2011-04-05 Thread Motonori Shindo
Hi, Current NetFlow V9/IPFIX dissector treats IN_BYTES (IE=1) and IN_PERMANENT_BYTES (IE=85) exactly in the same way. The same applies to IN_PKTS (IE=2) and IN_PERMANENT_PKTS (IE=86). However, IN_BYTES/IN_PKTS and IN_PERMANENT_BYTES/IN_PERMANENT_PKTS have different semantics so they should be dist

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on Solaris-10-SPARC

2011-04-05 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Solaris-10-SPARC on Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Solaris-10-SPARC/builds/1897 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: solaris-10-sparc Build

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

2011-04-05 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/2380 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-ppc Build Reas

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on OSX-10.5-x86

2011-04-05 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of OSX-10.5-x86 on Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/OSX-10.5-x86/builds/2747 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-x86 Build Reason: Bui

[Wireshark-dev] Better support for writing statistics taps?

2011-04-05 Thread Guy Harris
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:22 PM, cmayn...@wireshark.org wrote: > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=36480 > > User: cmaynard > Date: 2011/04/05 01:22 PM > > Log: > Add ICMP tap support, and add a tshark tap to measure such things as: > * Number of ICMP echo requests,

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark 1.4 on Windows-7-x64

2011-04-05 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Windows-7-x64 on Wireshark 1.4. Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.4/builders/Windows-7-x64/builds/214 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk-1.4/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-7-x64 Build Reason: The w

[Wireshark-dev] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on OSX-10.5-x86

2011-04-05 Thread buildbot-no-reply
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of OSX-10.5-x86 on Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/OSX-10.5-x86/builds/2741 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: osx-10.5-x86 Build Reason: Bui

Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 36462: / /trunk/tools/: Makefile.am list_protos_in_cap.sh

2011-04-05 Thread Stephen Fisher
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:23:27PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote: > > Instead of a new line. According to the sed man page (this is > > FreeBSD), \n is a valid way to match. > > I've had issues with sed and newlines in the past. Hopefully 'tr' > works better for you (rev 36467). Yes, thanks! __

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Q re a possible bug for someone familiar with packet-ansi_637.c

2011-04-05 Thread Chris Maynard
Bill Meier writes: > In the proto_reg_handoff_ansi_637() code the variable > 'ansi_637_trans_app_handle' is set but never used. > (Coverity 835). > > My suspicion is that this handle should be used in the following iso > 'ansi_637_trans_handle': > > /* Dissect messages embedded in SIP */