Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote: > Funny, when I want to build my normal vi-like editor on Windows/Cygwin I just > extract the tarball, type ./configure, and then "make". Works like a charm. > :-) > > Admittedly the editor has a LOT less requirements/dependencies than > Wires

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Today the the best practice (IMO) is _not_ shipping configure, but > requiring autofoo/CMake in source tarballs. And if we're going to require more than just compiler+make to build from source, CMake might be the better of those two choices.

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 01/05/2015 06:51 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 11:46:48PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: On 5 January 2015 at 23:39, Stephen Fisher wrote: Right, that's the best part of of autoconf: it generates a shell script called configure that will run on any system without having a

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 07:45:08PM +0100, B?lint R?czey wrote: > Originally I was skeptical regarding CMake, but now I think this is > the best cross-platform option, thus the best option for Wireshark. > Just give it a try, and you will never look back. :-) Oookay, I'll try it :) > Theoretica

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

Hi Stephen, 2015-01-06 0:20 GMT+01:00 Stephen Fisher : > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:34:16PM -0500, Ed Beroset wrote: > >> Having been around this particular block a couple of times, yes, CMake >> at times is a battle, but it's also better than the alternative of >> producing (and maintaining) mult

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 11:46:48PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > On 5 January 2015 at 23:39, Stephen Fisher wrote: > > Right, that's the best part of of autoconf: it generates a shell > > script called configure that will run on any system without having > > autoconf installed. > > Including Wi

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:34:16PM -0500, Ed Beroset wrote: > Stephen Fisher wrote: > >Indeed. So what about making a script to read in Makefile.common and > >spitting out those XML files for msbuild? Or update the msbuild so IDE > >things in those files (if any) aren't reset every time its r

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 5 January 2015 at 23:39, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:35:32AM +1000, David Arnold wrote: > > > In my experience, shipping the configure(.sh) and Makefile(s) will > > work on any Unix system: you don?t need the configure.ac, Makefile.am > > or autoconf/automake installed i

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:35:32AM +1000, David Arnold wrote: > In my experience, shipping the configure(.sh) and Makefile(s) will > work on any Unix system: you don?t need the configure.ac, Makefile.am > or autoconf/automake installed in order to configure and build. Right, that's the best par

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 6 Jan 2015, at 9:28 am, Graham Bloice wrote: <…> > CMake does the same job as ac\am but cross platform, and in the same way as > ac\am you can't really ship the outputs (makefile or VS solution\vcproj) for > use on other systems as they might be configured differently. In my experience, ship

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 5 January 2015 at 23:20, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:34:16PM -0500, Ed Beroset wrote: > > > Having been around this particular block a couple of times, yes, CMake > > at times is a battle, but it's also better than the alternative of > > producing (and maintaining) multi

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:34:16PM -0500, Ed Beroset wrote: > Having been around this particular block a couple of times, yes, CMake > at times is a battle, but it's also better than the alternative of > producing (and maintaining) multiple mutually incompatible and > inevitably arbitrarily dif

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

Stephen Fisher wrote: > >> Yes, use CMake :-) >> >> There are other cross-platform build solutions such as SCons, but it's >> just as bad as CMake (or maybe worse, I haven't tried anything other >> than a toy project). >> >> Adding a dissector to CMake is as simple as it is for nmake with the >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 1/5/15 10:02 AM, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > On 5 January 2015 at 17:35, Stephen Fisher > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:20:27PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > Yes, use CMake :-) > > > > There are other cross-platform build solutions such as

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:02:53PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > I don't get your last comment. Unless you're modifying the build > system or adding new files, CMake doesn't come into it after the > initial solution generation. The solution files automagically rebuild > themselves if somethin

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 5 January 2015 at 17:35, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:20:27PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > Yes, use CMake :-) > > > > There are other cross-platform build solutions such as SCons, but it's > > just as bad as CMake (or maybe worse, I haven't tried anything other > > t

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:20:27PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > Yes, use CMake :-) > > There are other cross-platform build solutions such as SCons, but it's > just as bad as CMake (or maybe worse, I haven't tried anything other > than a toy project). > > Adding a dissector to CMake is as simp

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 5 January 2015 at 17:03, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:26:23AM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > CMake can still generate nmake files if you wish, but IMHO the normal > > route would be to generate VS solution files and then build from the > > command line with msbuild, or

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:26:23AM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > CMake can still generate nmake files if you wish, but IMHO the normal > route would be to generate VS solution files and then build from the > command line with msbuild, or fire up the IDE and build from there. I've always liked t

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 5 January 2015 at 08:26, Graham Bloice wrote: > On 4 January 2015 at 21:05, Stephen Fisher wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 10:08:53AM +, Graham Bloice wrote: >> >> > Maybe your Win7 SDK came from an earlier install of the Platform SDK? >> >> My Win8 32-bit machine at home is a fresh i

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 4 January 2015 at 21:05, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 10:08:53AM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > Maybe your Win7 SDK came from an earlier install of the Platform SDK? > > My Win8 32-bit machine at home is a fresh install, so VC 2013 CE is the > only VC I've ever installed.

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 10:08:53AM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > Maybe your Win7 SDK came from an earlier install of the Platform SDK? My Win8 32-bit machine at home is a fresh install, so VC 2013 CE is the only VC I've ever installed. The Win7 64-bit install at work install may have had som

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

[mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Graham Bloice Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:09 AM To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions On 4 January 2015 at 03:58, Stephen Fisher mailto:sfis...@sdf.org> >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 4 January 2015 at 03:58, Stephen Fisher wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 06:52:56PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > OK, it seems that even after all the complaints MS still haven't > > updated VS 201x to provide it. IIRC it went missing in VS2010. See > > here for at least one complaint a

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 06:52:56PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > OK, it seems that even after all the complaints MS still haven't > updated VS 201x to provide it. IIRC it went missing in VS2010. See > here for at least one complaint about it: > https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedb

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

OK, it seems that even after all the complaints MS still haven't updated VS 201x to provide it. IIRC it went missing in VS2010. See here for at least one complaint about it: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/771247/win32-mak-is-missing-from-vs-2012-win-8-sdk-install It's

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 03:39:42PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > What version of VS are you using? VS 2013 Community Edition (on 64-bit Win7) ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

I believed this was no longer needed with VS2013 Community Edition, however ... In my dev VM, I uninstalled copies of VS2010 Pro, and VS2013 Pro (but didn't inspect for detritus) and then installed VS2013 CE and didn't need to copy the file thus I removed that section. However, looking at my dev

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

One more thing I ran into: https://ask.wireshark.org/questions/4725/file-win32mak-not-found-stop Using Gerald's suggestion worked to get past verify_tools and setup so far: SET INCLUDE=%INCLUDE%;c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1A\Include Should this be included in the dev gui

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 12:52:04PM -0800, Gerald Combs wrote: > We have PowerShell scripts that prep text files and assist with NSIS > packaging, both of which are specific to Windows. You must also have > PowerShell 2.0 or later installed if you want to install Chocolatey > packages. Gotcha,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 1/2/15 12:11 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01:58PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > >> I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update >> it to use VS2013 Community Edition. > > I'm setting up a Windows build environment again for the first time i

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01:58PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update > it to use VS2013 Community Edition. I'm setting up a Windows build environment again for the first time in a couple of years and the instructions are working

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 22 December 2014 at 13:49, Alexis La Goutte wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Graham Bloice < > graham.blo...@trihedral.com> wrote: > >> I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update it >> to use VS2013 Community Edition. The question is how far do I go in >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On 22 December 2014 at 16:48, Stephen Fisher wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01:58PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > > > I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update > > it to use VS2013 Community Edition. The question is how far do I go > > in removing old stuff? > > >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01:58PM +, Graham Bloice wrote: > I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update > it to use VS2013 Community Edition. The question is how far do I go > in removing old stuff? > > I've already removed anything from earlier than VS2010, but I

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Update Windows Build Instructions

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Graham Bloice wrote: > I have mostly got the rework to the Developers Guide ready to update it to > use VS2013 Community Edition. The question is how far do I go in removing > old stuff? > Nice ! Do you have add some stuff about Chocolate ? > > I've already re