On 9/20/13 2:15 AM, Graham Bloice wrote:
> I believe the Chocolatey install script in a package can put the files
> in any location, they just have defaults. Chocolatey is a machine-wide
> package manager and NuGet seems to be more focused on libraries for
> specific apps, hence targeting the app
On 20 September 2013 01:16, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
>
> > Similarly on Mac, it would be nice if the macosx-setup.sh script could
> > as much as possible be replaced with a set of homebrew packages (or
> > some other equivalent).
>
> On OS X and Windows
On 20 September 2013 08:04, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> 2013/9/20 Gerald Combs
>
>> If I understand correctly, the main difference between Chocolatey
>> packages and NuGet packages from our perspective is that the former are
>> installed in system-wide locations (primarily %ProgramFiles%) and the
>>
2013/9/20 Gerald Combs
> If I understand correctly, the main difference between Chocolatey
> packages and NuGet packages from our perspective is that the former are
> installed in system-wide locations (primarily %ProgramFiles%) and the
> latter are installed in the local source directory. Which
On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> Similarly on Mac, it would be nice if the macosx-setup.sh script could
> as much as possible be replaced with a set of homebrew packages (or
> some other equivalent).
On OS X and Windows, it would be nice if people doing Wireshark development
wer
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> Similarly on Mac, it would be nice if the macosx-setup.sh script could
> as much as possible be replaced with a set of homebrew packages (or
> some other equivalent).
+1 on that
--
This information is top security. When you have read it, de
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> On 8/6/13 4:18 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>
>> Currently all the library archives are stored in SVN and if we simply
>> convert it
>> to Git anyone cloning the repository would have to download all the libs ever
>> checked in (unless using git c
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Gerald Combs wrote:
> I finally have some time set aside to do more work on the Git migration.
> I'm hoping to do the following in the near future:
>
> Switch code.wireshark.org from gitweb to cgit.
>
> This isn't strictly necessary but IMHO cgit has a slightly nic
On 6 August 2013 19:11, Gerald Combs wrote:
> On 8/6/13 4:18 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>
> > Currently all the library archives are stored in SVN and if we simply
> convert it
> > to Git anyone cloning the repository would have to download all the libs
> ever
> > checked in (unless using git clone
On 8/6/13 4:18 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> Currently all the library archives are stored in SVN and if we simply convert
> it
> to Git anyone cloning the repository would have to download all the libs ever
> checked in (unless using git clone --depth which imposes other limitations).
> Handling bi
Hi Gerald,
2013/8/6 Gerald Combs :
> I finally have some time set aside to do more work on the Git migration.
> I'm hoping to do the following in the near future:
Great!
>
> Switch code.wireshark.org from gitweb to cgit.
>
> This isn't strictly necessary but IMHO cgit has a slightly nicer
> inter
I finally have some time set aside to do more work on the Git migration.
I'm hoping to do the following in the near future:
Switch code.wireshark.org from gitweb to cgit.
This isn't strictly necessary but IMHO cgit has a slightly nicer
interface and its URL format appears to be much more sane.
12 matches
Mail list logo
