The tool.
I think that wireshark has been used a de-facto fork for PIDL the tool
since many many years. But a fork that is occasionally synced back
with upstream.
That is the only way we can make sure that we will always be able to
even compile the IDL in wireshark to a working dissector.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:04 PM, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> There is very little overlap between samba needs and wireshark needs for PIDL.
>> It is probably better to continue running two separate forks of PIDL,
>> one for samba and one for wireshark.
>>
>> Switching to samba PIDL seems to be a lot of work for miniscule gain.
>> And who will do the work?
>
> Are you referring to forking PIDL, the language, or to forking PIDL, the tool that translates PIDL-the-language descriptions into code for {Samba,Wireshark,...}?
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe