Den tors 21 dec. 2023 12:03João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev: > > On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote: > > Hi, > > To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages > > and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers. > > This is a feature I vote for us to keep regardless of any opinion on > > how Debian build their packages. Maybe a Debian mailing list is a > > better place to discuss their build system? > > I don't know what that has anything to do with what I said below but > that is totally fine. I'm not against a Debian package. I'm against > mirroring Debian in this project. I note you already asked me twice how > the package could be made better, I answered both times (IMO) and you > never replied back. > > And what I'm saying is that I find it convenient to have the script and > that I would like us to keep them. As for how to improve the scripts I did > not intend to work on them myself. Sorry if you felt I should have > acknowledged in any way. >
Best regards Anders > > > > Just my 2 cents > > Anders > > > > Den ons 20 dec. 2023 23:49João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev: > > > > > > > > On 20/12/23 22:35, Roland Knall wrote: > > > > > >> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:43 schrieb João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt>: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt>: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So people can link to our libraries to write other projets? > > And expect it to work reliably? That is news to me. I have made > > this question many times over the years but I guess I was not > > worthy of a clear answer until now. > > >>>>> > > >>> I am not saying they should do it or that I appreciate it > > happening. All I am saying is that it happens and is happening and > > we did not put a stop to it in time. Should they expect it to be > > reliable? Of course not as I answered also in other threads on > > this matter. But at the same time I see no point in having them > > hit a wall face on, rather work in such cases where we know about > > it, to ensure them moving to a saner approach. > > >> What?! I'm back to confused... So you don't like the situation, > > you say. Here's a thought.. maybe if Debian didn't publish system > > libraries in our name with these stupid symbol lists then people > > wouldn't get the crazy idea they could use these libraries that > > were published for this exact purpose and build their own software > > on top of it and expect it to work reliable and not break every > > other release, like most other non-Wireshark Debian libraries. > > >> > > >> I wonder what could be done about that. I guess Debian would > > get that clue pretty darn quick if we weren't mirroring their > > broken setup in our repository, thereby sanctioning it. > > >> > > >> I don't know, call me crazy. Or did I misunderstand again? Sure > > seems complicated to get my head around this for such a simple > > topic as is software release and distribution. > > > Just a thought, libvirt was not created by debian but RedHat so > > the state of debian packaging has nothing to do with them. Debians > > package is merely moving their approach onto Debian, but the > > decision to implement libvirts plugin in such a way had been done > > by RedHats folks. > > > > And what such way is that?! I don't even know why libvirt keeps > > coming > > up in this discussion. They wrote a dissector plugin. That's > > great. Good > > for them. I don't upstream many of my plugins into Wireshark either. > > This is something so banal that I am honestly confused why libvirt > > keeps > > coming up as a big boogaloo in this discussion. > > > > I ask again in all sincerity, because I could be misunderstanding, > > what > > is the difficulty created by the libvirt plugin and what does that > > have > > to do with Debian packaging? > > > > > > >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > >> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > >> Unsubscribe: > > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > >> > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > > Unsubscribe: > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > > > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org > > > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
