Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries
From: Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:10:06 -0600
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/09/2011 05:56 PM, David Fifield wrote:
It would be nice to have an indication of whether libpcre, libpcap, and libdnet are the versions that come packaged with Nmap or are from the operating system. In this example, libpcap and libdnet are "included," and libpcre is not. Here are some ideas I've had. 1. Use a mark like an asterisk to show included libraries. Compiled with: libpcre-7.6 *libpcap-0.9.8 *libdnet-1.12 ipv6 Compiled without: liblua openssl * = Nmap included
I like this one best of your 3 ideas. It's short and understandable.
2. Use a prefix like "nmap-". Compiled with: libpcre-7.6 nmap-libpcap-0.9.8 nmap-libdnet-1.12 ipv6 Compiled without: liblua openssl
This my least favorite. It looks more cluttered and I don't think the "nmap-" prefix would be obvious to non-devs.
3. Use a separate output line. (Option 3' would be to have the included libraries appear in both "Compiled with" lines, not just one.) Compiled with (Nmap included): libpcap-0.9.8 libdnet-1.12 Compiled with: libpcre-7.6 ipv6 Compiled without: liblua openssl
This is OK but #1, while still 3 lines of output, looks better to me.
Any comments or suggestions? The goal is mainly to help us on the dev list troubleshoot people's problems, but also the output should be informative and understandable to anyone who happens to run "nmap -V". David Fifield
Cheers, Kris Katterjohn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUyzdAAoJEEQxgFs5kUfuxtIQAL55Ns3bmUonn6tCilol3WLz hTnvOhBVT49V06+wQGGIEyy7JwW9Eo14hYzeH0gYk3/mjIIm2etRpZsUf+04rKqU mj8JuMg8dNx6E3sRmK0lUphfP65Ch0MUbTkclXJMoN17jS0ULeZfJ5OxZqnjaF9K q9q+mEGnTVExqWwKPGoJixAkV/C72kY10rAyf4gwYJewGjDvZbc2janZ2isyHqf2 2DW4R43fvwFZNGCTcYnVwa8CgoPxCbPzDyt/2tV+fnKVXzLHa7v0yf6esoN2/Pxo S+9vsloSYojnBO6JKkRYbyjPVtqR0oJ6840NFVQweFmqInS7/wSMEAHM36zkhLNl wcWmWZGS5VpJXkJzEoqVCT/t4SQrNi8+qh+BLJhYAZSwWGdEIHIj8szj8gXxAE5C Ci8Zta8pHsxw6TZ+pQD8/O06mx8uWbOgD8+u1q8V9q8Y3CY0qlUTX0pDZVM/R1uB yi688NQVoK4Nzse29PrK3QPNi1iLJ7oJnlK9g1TvQKVfw/hdJCzxBqIDB3Su8Go7 d025dtS1u3E/aV3m61CwKJ/Kj7rlNtzdYTNqhZZMZsxY2OWlcazRoH1fe601Bo4H Vqsr2olxLPuMVRWLoIBJEy9mU+NBpOtur2fDzrIyBebxlrk3PoieRQCeuvrgxont wrQozJfD+Mydks2gcdPo =JCuG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Re: Version display patch, (continued)
- Re: Version display patch David Fifield (Feb 04)
- RE: Version display patch Thomas Buchanan (Feb 04)
- Re: Version display patch ambarisha b (Feb 06)
- RE: Version display patch Thomas Buchanan (Feb 06)
- Re: Version display patch ambarisha b (Feb 08)
- RE: Version display patch Thomas Buchanan (Feb 08)
- RE: Version display patch Rob Nicholls (Feb 08)
- Re: Version display patch ambarisha b (Feb 08)
- Re: Version display patch David Fifield (Feb 08)
- Version display: included vs. system libraries David Fifield (Feb 09)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries Kris Katterjohn (Feb 09)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries ambarisha b (Feb 09)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries Kris Katterjohn (Feb 09)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries David Fifield (Feb 18)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries ambarisha b (Feb 19)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries ambarisha b (Feb 22)
- Re: Version display: included vs. system libraries David Fifield (Feb 24)
- Re: Version display patch M Z (Feb 09)
- Re: Version display patch Luis MartinGarcia. (Feb 19)