2014-11-20 9:53 GMT+01:00 Maarten Bezemer <maarten.beze...@gmail.com>: > On Thursday 13 November 2014 15:15:26 you wrote: >> On Thursday 13 November 2014 13:56:26 Graham Bloice wrote: >> > While I'm all for making life easier for devs, if no-one else has >> > identified this as a need, i.e. only you find it worthwhile, then we will >> > end up with stuff not generally used in the repo and then who will be >> > maintaining these bits of CMake? >> >> [1] is an attempt I found to have out of source builds. But it never got fed >> back to Wireshark and consists (eventually) outdated scripts. By >> integrating such functionality, keeps the development scripts up-to-date. >> >> I am also willing to write a (wiki) document explaining the out of source >> builds (when my patches get accepted) to help out others as well. As the >> current information about this subject on the Internet is very minimal. >> >> The maintenance of my patches is not too hard I think. I mainly use (cmake) >> scripts that are already available. The changes I made are to make them more >> generic, e.g. by getting rid of hard-coded paths. All scripts are >> also/already used when Wireshark itself gets build. > > Is there anything left for me to do or to explain? > I would like gain some momentum either direction (approved or abandoned), so I > know whether my current (out of source) plug-in implementation can be used at > work or not. I was waiting for Jörg to comment on the change, but I have submitted it instead: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/5316/
Cheers, Balint ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
