This is our old Q&A Site. Please post any new questions and answers at ask.wireshark.org.

I downloaded the source code and installed with the following settings:

tar -xjf wireshark-1.6.1.tar.bz2
cd wireshark-1.6.1
./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-threads --with-lua --with-ssl --enable-setuid-install
make
make install

When I start wireshark, its title shows "SVN Rev Unknown from unknown". Although it is not a problem, does someone know why this happens?

asked 01 Aug '11, 07:28

solohuang's gravatar image

solohuang
1112
accept rate: 0%

edited 01 Aug '11, 16:09

helloworld's gravatar image

helloworld
3.1k42041


Sounds like a bug.

Please file a bug report at bugs.wireshark.org

Thanks

permanent link

answered 01 Aug '11, 12:30

Bill%20Meier's gravatar image

Bill Meier ♦♦
3.2k1850
accept rate: 17%

As I mentioned in the comment to Jeff, I committed a change in r38340. But now I don't know if bug 1413 needs to be reopened and some other change made. I leave that to someone else at this point.

(04 Aug '11, 13:48) cmaynard ♦♦

See bug 1413.

permanent link

answered 01 Aug '11, 18:03

cmaynard's gravatar image

cmaynard ♦♦
9.4k1038142
accept rate: 20%

Interesting. It was decided long ago that if the SVN version couldn't be determined (e.g., source built from tarball), "SVN Rev Unknown" would be shown instead of the actual revision number.

Probably not the place for this but: That "unknown" label is verbose and seemingly useless. It should've been omitted altogether.

(01 Aug '11, 19:49) helloworld

Feel free to open a bug report and submit a proposed patch for some other solution. Be sure to keep in mind where SVNVERSION and SVNPATH are used, such as in capinfos.c, editcap.c, mergecap.c, text2pcap.c, version_info.c and possibly other places.

(01 Aug '11, 19:58) cmaynard ♦♦

Shouldn't our official source tarballs, well, not try to use SVN and just report the version [especially now that we put the version in the titlebar]?

(04 Aug '11, 06:32) JeffMorriss ♦

Yes, I think so. I committed a change in r38340 and scheduled it for 1.6.2 and 1.4.9. Essentially, it reverts the change I made for bug 1413 ... but now I don't now if bug 1413 needs to be reopened. If it does, I guess I'll let someone else try to come up with a fix for it.

(04 Aug '11, 13:45) cmaynard ♦♦

I finally got back to this and committed a different change in r38933. I'll schedule that for 1.6.3 once the queue for that release opens. (Chris' change in 38340 made 1.6.2 so users of the source tarballs shouldn't notice any change between 1.6.2 and 1.6.3.)

(07 Sep '11, 19:00) JeffMorriss ♦
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×158

question asked: 01 Aug '11, 07:28

question was seen: 5,107 times

last updated: 07 Sep '11, 19:00

p​o​w​e​r​e​d by O​S​Q​A