On 8 October 2013 00:22, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > > > This is undoubtedly about the fact that Makefile.nmake copies lots of
> > > > DLLs and etc to a separate "run" directory.
> > > >
> > > > The exe's won't run from the build dir on Windows.
> > > >
> > > > See install_all: target in Makefile.nmak
Anders brought up a question in bug 9241 that I've always been curious about
(and I think the discussion is better served on -dev than the bug). We have
many TCP/UDP dissectors that don't have an IANA assigned port number or are not
setup as heuristic dissectors. In these cases their port numb
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org
[mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of mman...@netscape.net
Sent: den 8 oktober 2013 15:23
To: wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Subject: [Wireshark-dev] fuzzing UDP/TCP dissectors with no port assignment
>Anders brought up a question in bu
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:26:25AM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Our standard operating procedure these days is to have patches
> submitted via bugzilla. Patches sent to this list tend to get lost.
>
> Could you please submit a bug for these?
>
Ok, opened bug:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/
On 10/07/2013 12:47 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
In reading this mail it sounds somewhat harsh. It's not
intended that way but I'm somewhat sleep deprived right now and don't
want to spend the time rephrasing it.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:13:03AM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
Which bugnumber(s) are s
On 10/07/2013 03:05 PM, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
The tool.
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
even compile the I
I had a thought in this direction a while back. It was in the context
of randpkt, not fuzzing but I think the same principle applies:
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201304/msg00109.html
Basically it should be pretty easy to script such that it forces
decoding for every protocol ove
On 10/08/13 14:25, ger...@wireshark.org wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=52452
User: gerald
Date: 2013/10/08 06:25 PM
Log:
Add notes about Qt, wmem, and bug 9242.
Directory: /trunk/docbook/
ChangesPath Action
+5 -0 re
I've scheduled the release of 1.11.0 for next Tuesday, October 15.
Corrections and additions for the release notes are welcome.
Unfortunately the transitional state of our UI will be reflected in the
release packages:
Windows 32-bit: GTK3 and Qt
Windows 64-bit: GTK2 and Qt
OS X 64-bit: Qt
OS X 32
On 10/8/13 11:54 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Should there be a note about all the API changes? I just finished
> updating my private dissectors (to build both in 1.11 and prior--so lots
> of #ifdef's) and it took me a while and a bunch of code to do...
Would it make sense to maintain a list of new
On 10/08/13 15:32, Gerald Combs wrote:
On 10/8/13 11:54 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Should there be a note about all the API changes? I just finished
updating my private dissectors (to build both in 1.11 and prior--so lots
of #ifdef's) and it took me a while and a bunch of code to do...
Would it
11 matches
Mail list logo
