Allright guys,
First of all, thank you for all those informations ! Let me answer to a few things :
- Last time I tried (i.e. sometimes around August IIRC), building GTK+ on the then latest Tiger (10.4.7 IIRC) wasn't easy at all. Maybe because I wanted to build it with all the dependencies. But you're right, it's not so hard anyway.
- I just hate Fink and/or DarwinPorts. I personally think they set things up very poorly, but that's just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, their stuff works, but I don't like the way it's wired.
- Like I said in my message ("I already gave a try"), yeah, I actually built the Quartz-GTK+ port, and, well, it's doing pretty good. It's actually even usable and pretty straightforward to build, but not "deployable". There are a few graphical bugs, and it's leaking memory, but it's working !
Anyway, thank you a lot for all those informations. I was wondering : if libwireshark is doing all the work, wouldn't it be possible to simply re-write a new GUI from scratch that would link against libwireshark ? I think it would then be a bit more difficult to maintain, but a lot easier to write ! Would it be actualy doable ? What do you guys think about it ?
Anyway, thanks a lot for all those infos !!
Regards,
Romain
2006/12/20, Stephen Fisher <stephentfisher@xxxxxxxxx
>:On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:28:48PM +0100, Romain Goyet wrote:
> -> Build GTK+ and its dependencies, and then run Wireshark under
> Apple's X11. That works just fine, but it's a pain in the *** to
> build. It takes forever, you have to keep tweaking makefiles, etc...
> For the average hacker, it's doable, but it's absolutely impossible
> for a typical user.
Typical users are best off using packages from MacPorts (DarwinPorts) or
Fink, although they still need to install X11.
> -> Use the Quartz port of GTK+. This is a pretty good option. But it
> has two drawbacks : first, the UI is still grey-ish, and really
> doesn't fit well with other Aqua apps. That's just a visual problem,
> but that does matter. Secondly, this port of GTK+ is still a very
> early port, and it's pretty buggy. Anyway, its author himself says
> it's not ready for production yet.
This may be worth waiting for instead of spending countless hours
porting Wireshark. You have tried the Quartz port of GTK then? I keep
meaning to try it out to see how it is. A nice thing about being GTK on
all platforms is that it makes it easier for all of us to keep the code
up to date without learning GUI programming on each OS :) <although we
do already use some native code, such as the Windows file selection
dialog>.
> So, what do you guys think ? I'd be willing to help make a native Mac
> OS X GUI for WireShark, but I don't know wether it's really worth it.
In addition to the issue that Guy brought up, a problem that comes up
when porting X/GTK applications to the native OS X GUI is that X/GTK and
Windows applications often use menus in each sub-window that pops up and
OS X wants you to use a single menu bar at the top.
Emacs has successfully created a GTK and native OS X GUI (among others)
to choose from. I love my OS X applications, but I actually prefer the
X11 port of it on my Mac. Maybe that's just because I use it under X on
other platforms.
I can't speak for the other developers, but personally I think yours and
our time would be better spent on other Wireshark features.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
