On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 04:52:12PM +0200, Kovarththanan Rajaratnam wrote:
> Have you thought about how we should handle the autogenerated
> dissectors? I'm looking at this right now and I'm not quite sure how to
> do this in a clean fashion. Any ideas?
Which autogenerated dissectors are you talking about? There are the
dissectors that are always generated (like packet-ncp2222.c). Then
there are the dissectors that are only generated "on demand" and the
result is (supposed to be) checked in, so any developer not working
on the dissector or its tool will not have to generate the dissector
at all. These are the dissectors generated by idl2wrs, pidl and asn2wrs
(and some more). So if you want to take on the asn directory, then IMO
just repeating the behaviour of the current system should be fine, i.e.
generating makefiles with the targets generate_dissector, generate_export
and copy_files.
I liked the option you added to cmake to automagically do that stuff for
the idl stuff - if you want to add something like that for the other
stuff as well then this only means that if the option is set, these
targets need to be built before the rest.
Feel free to ask if you have any further questions (not that I'm a
master of cmake ;-) I'm also on #wireshark at irc.freenode (Terman), so
if you'd like to discuss things a bit more interactively just try that.
My timezone is MET DST.
Ciao
Joerg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.