Re: (1) building Wireshark in build.wireshark fails, (2) how to get dissector details without packet

[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>]

Wireshark is a complicated project to build.  You can follow the tested
way, as shown in the Developers Guide, which is essentially what our
Continuous Integration (CI) systems use and most other developers, or you
can forge your own path on less travelled routes strewn with rocks, rusty
nails and broken glass that you mostly have to deal with on your own.

Unless you have some inescapable need to do things in a different way, it's
easier and more productive to follow the herd.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 09:52, Vincent Randal <vtrandal () gmail com> wrote:

> (1) There is no error message other than it fails immediately when
> beginning building "qtui" (at about 70% of the way into make for
> wireshark-3.4.4)
> (2) Good point. Wireshark uses dissectors to provide details of packets,
> as you point out. So then the dissector source code provides the details of
> the dissector.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:26 AM Guy Harris <gharris () sonic net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 12:55 AM, Vincent Randal <vtrandal () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > (1)  building Wireshark in build.wireshark fails
> > > The solution here is to use "build" as the name of the build directory
> > and then make succeeds. Otherwise, if the build directory has some other
> > name like build.wireshark then make fails at about 70% when building qtui.
> >
> > What's the error that it reports?  I can't reproduce that on my Mac with
> > the current tip of the main branch.
> >
> > > (2) how to get dissector details without packet
> > > I see there is "Decode as ..." in the Analzye menu of Wireshark. That
> > looks very useful. I think I can use that to get Wireshark to ... uh well
> > ... decode an already decoded packet as something else.
> > > But what about something that shows me what Wireshark thinks about a
> > dissector even without a packet? Is that possible? Can Wireshark show me
> > the details of a dissector without a packet to dissect?
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by "the details of the dissector".
> > Normally, what Wireshark shows is the details of a *packet*, which,
> > obviously, requires a packet; what would the details of a *dissector* be?
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > 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-request () 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-request () wireshark org
> ?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Graham Bloice
Software Developer
Trihedral UK Limited

___________________________________________________________________________
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe