On 01/06/07, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FR #744697: > > * Is it worth suppressing this help output? > > * Is it worth skipping these (irrelevant) flags in the option > > processing? > > Can the presence of these options cause snmpdf et al. to malfunction?
I don't think so, no. The snmpdf code uses the "MIB:node" syntax, which works regardless of the -Istyle flags. (Though inappropriate use of the -m/-M flags might break it). The snmpstatus code uses numeric OIDs internally, so doesn't rely on MIB files at all. In both cases, output doesn't typically include OIDs either (apart from reporting errors in the snmpstatus query), so -O shouldn't affect things. > > FR#722784, SVN r16441 - explicit end point for snmpwalk > > FR#851887, SVN r16448 - display valid range in "out-of-range" error > > FR#1041888, SVN r16449 - simple validation of config directories > > FR#1159947, SVN r16459 - "format execute" in snmptrapd.conf > > I'd be fine with FR#851887 and FR#1041888 being regarded as bug fixes. Noted. > The others clearly feel like new features. Agreed. (Sort-of) But these patches are sufficiently simple (particularl r16459), that it wouldn't seem unreasonable to apply them to the 5.4.x line (for example). Please have a look at the code of the patch, and let me know what you think. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
