Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 22259: /trunk/packaging/nsis/ /trunk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ulf Lamping" <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>
To: <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 22259:
/trunk/packaging/nsis/ /trunk/packaging/nsis/: wireshark.nsi
jake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=22259
User: jake
Date: 2007/07/06 08:34 PM
Log:
Have the installer propose to install 4.0.1 over 4.0.0
Unfortunately, this fix doesn't work as it should.
The installer will try to install 4.0.1 anyway, regardless if 4.0.1 is
already there or not. Just try to install 0.99.6a again and you'll see :-)
Cacetech uses DisplayVersion 4.0.0.901 for it's 4.0.1 version, which is
probably also not such a good idea.
Just a quick explaining as to why v 4.0.1 has an internal version of
4.0.0.901. I usually don't like to use three digit version numbers like
4.0.1, but I needed to because 4.1beta was already built and out to the wild
before we decided to have a new "release" version fixing the security
vulnerability reported by the iDefense labs. However, internal version
number (4.0.0.901) follows a well defined scheme. In particular, the third
number represents the build type, where 0 is the vanilla winpcap and 1, 2,
3... represent specific builds like WinPcap Professional. What is important
(for me as a developer) is always the fourth number, which represents the
build (more or less like the SVN revision).
In any case, I'm the one to blame for the versioning scheme...
Ciao
GV
However, you should try to use the DisplayName to decode that stuff,
that was "more stable" in older WinPcap releases.
Could you have another try?
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
