[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 08:53, Paul Offord <paul.offord58@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Can you confirm what makes adequate documentation.  Is it just the HTML file (e.g. tshark.html) that’s included in the install package or is there something else?

At least the man page equivalent, which is in Asciidoctor format (.adoc) and would go in the doc directory, which is subsequently processed to provide the various other formats, and something in the user guide appendix D, related command line tools (https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/AppTools.html).

 

Sent from my iPad

On 6 Jan 2022, at 10:47, Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 22:55, Paul Offord <paul.offord58@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

There is a tremendous push for automation at work, and I'm sure other enterprises have the same aspirations.  Sharkd provides all the power of Wireshark dissection and filtering in a way that can easily be driven by an automation script.

It's quite difficult to get permission to instal Wireshark, and there is zero chance of us being allowed to build a copy from source.  I'm sure similar restrictions apply to many in large organisations.

Is it possible to include sharkd in the installers?

I don't see any issue in doing so if the application is adequately documented.

However, if it's difficult to get permission to install Wireshark that doesn't include sharkd, how will you get permission to install Wireshark that does include it?

Best regards...Paul

--

Paul Offord

--

Graham Bloice

--

Graham Bloice