[Anders Broman <a.broman58@xxxxxxxxx>]

Den tors 21 dec. 2023 12:03João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:

On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
> Hi,
> To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages
> and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers.
> This is a feature I vote for us to keep regardless of any opinion on
> how Debian build their packages. Maybe a Debian mailing list is a
> better place to discuss their build system?

I don't know what that has anything to do with what I said below but
that is totally fine. I'm not against a Debian package. I'm against
mirroring Debian in this project. I note you already asked me twice how
the package could be made better, I answered both times (IMO) and you
never replied back.

And what I'm saying is that I find it convenient to have the script and that I would like us to keep them. As for how to improve the scripts I did not intend to work on them myself. Sorry if you felt I should have acknowledged in any way.

Best regards 

Anders

> Just my 2 cents
> Anders
>
> Den ons 20 dec. 2023 23:49João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:
>
>
>
>     On 20/12/23 22:35, Roland Knall wrote:
>     >
>     >> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:43 schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:
>     >>
>     >> 
>     >>
>     >>> On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>>> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:
>     >>>> 
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> So people can link to our libraries to write other projets?
>     And expect it to work reliably? That is news to me. I have made
>     this question many times over the years but I guess I was not
>     worthy of a clear answer until now.
>     >>>>>
>     >>> I am not saying they should do it or that I appreciate it
>     happening. All I am saying is that it happens and is happening and
>     we did not put a stop to it in time. Should they expect it to be
>     reliable? Of course not as I answered also in other threads on
>     this matter. But at the same time I see no point in having them
>     hit a wall face on, rather work in such cases where we know about
>     it, to ensure them moving to a saner approach.
>     >> What?! I'm back to confused... So you don't like the situation,
>     you say. Here's a thought.. maybe if Debian didn't publish system
>     libraries in our name with these stupid symbol lists then people
>     wouldn't get the crazy idea they could use these libraries that
>     were published for this exact purpose and build their own software
>     on top of it and expect it to work reliable and not break every
>     other release, like most other non-Wireshark Debian libraries.
>     >>
>     >> I wonder what could be done about that. I guess Debian would
>     get that clue pretty darn quick if we weren't mirroring their
>     broken setup in our repository, thereby sanctioning it.
>     >>
>     >> I don't know, call me crazy. Or did I misunderstand again? Sure
>     seems complicated to get my head around this for such a simple
>     topic as is software release and distribution.
>     > Just a thought, libvirt was not created by debian but RedHat so
>     the state of debian packaging has nothing to do with them. Debians
>     package is merely moving their approach onto Debian, but the
>     decision to implement libvirts plugin in such a way had been done
>     by RedHats folks.
>
>     And what such way is that?! I don't even know why libvirt keeps
>     coming
>     up in this discussion. They wrote a dissector plugin. That's
>     great. Good
>     for them. I don't upstream many of my plugins into Wireshark either.
>     This is something so banal that I am honestly confused why libvirt
>     keeps
>     coming up as a big boogaloo in this discussion.
>
>     I ask again in all sincerity, because I could be misunderstanding,
>     what
>     is the difficulty created by the libvirt plugin and what does that
>     have
>     to do with Debian packaging?
>
>
>     >>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     >> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     >> Unsubscribe:
>     https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     >>           
>      mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>     >
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     >             
>      mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>                
>      mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>               mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe