> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> Then, I'd start with putting PACKAGE_* into the internal header
TA> file and work from there. Suggestions for additional entries are
TA> most welcome.
I think one of the things you should do is propose your total
solution here... some o
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> The library version for release 5.4 should be 540.
holy cow batman, that number is larger than can fit in a char!
One of the reasons I think that +10 is too large is that I'm just not
comfortable increasing our library version number on t
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> #define osf4 osf4
TA> I've just changed it this way for all system headers in MAIN.
Cool, thanks.
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more?
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I'd rather still try to go down this line as it seems to be the
> cleanest, IMHO. I'd propose that in the system .h files we should
> require defining the os definitions in the same way... IE,
>
> #define osf4
>
> is in there now but I think it should be:
>
> #define
Dave Shield wrote:
> On 17/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And I'm still waiting for comments from Thomas and Dave, and anyone
>> else who has an opinion.
>
> OK - I'm going to be slightly naughty, and propose a completely new
> numbering scheme.
>
> The library version for rele
On 17/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'm still waiting for comments from Thomas and Dave, and anyone
> else who has an opinion.
OK - I'm going to be slightly naughty, and propose a completely new
numbering scheme.
The library version for release 5.4 should be 540.
That would
On 17/08/06, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1, as long as there aren't any significant unresolved bug tracker items for
> agent/extend vs. "ucd-snmp/extensible". Are there any?
I'm not aware of any.
But then, I wouldn't expect them to come to light until *after* we
make the change. A
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:07:02 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> > "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WH>
WH> Robert> So, what I proposed is that we leave a little wiggle room in
WH> Robert> the versioning. [...]
WH>
WH> TA> Since 5.4 is approaching, we finally need to come up with a
WH> TA>
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:56:53 -0700 Wes wrote:
> WH> > "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> WH>
> WH> DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible"
> WH> DS> module code, [...]
> WH>
> WH> DS> Is now the right time to make that change?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:56:53 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> > "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WH>
WH> DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible"
WH> DS> module code, [...]
WH>
WH> DS> Is now the right time to make that change? [...]
WH>
WH> I think it's the r
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TA> The name of the additional header file is probably the last thing
> TA> I'd object against if we solved the issue in question. Let's agree
> TA> on splitting the two first.
>
> That's ok I'll object then. I obj
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> So, what I proposed is that we leave a little wiggle room in
Robert> the versioning. Can't do much about 5.1 and 5.2 - they are
Robert> already sandwiched (well, 5.1 isn't yet, but it's about to
Robert> me. More on that in a sec). Bu
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> The name of the additional header file is probably the last thing
TA> I'd object against if we solved the issue in question. Let's agree
TA> on splitting the two first.
That's ok I'll object then. I object to using config.h. Lets make
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> is there a good reason why "make install" currently installs all
TA> of include/net-snmp/system/*.h and not just the one(s) for the
TA> system in question? Even cross-compiling only has a *single*
TA> target system, so why? Is it only to
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible"
DS> module code, so individual admins could configure it into the agent
DS> (and restore the previous behaviour) - but we'd drop it from the
DS> default build.
DS> Is now the
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> I agree. Any objections to change include/net-snmp/system/*.h
TA> accordingly? Then, still, shouldn't we also change
TA> MODULECPP="$CPP -D$PARTIALTARGETOS ..."
TA> to
TA> MODULECPP="$CPP -D$PARTIALTARGETOS=$PARTIALTARGETOS ..."
Well,
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> But the question that immediately sprang to mind was - would this only
DS> apply to tokens that we explicitly define ourselves?
Yes.
DS> What would we do (if anything) with tokens that were defined
DS> automatically by the vendor-supplied
On 17/08/06, Felipe openglx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I
> ran snmpd, it gave me this error everytime my send_trap function was
> called:
>
> "send_trap: no v2 trapOID varbind provided"
> My code looks something like this:
> snmp_varlist_add_variable(&var_list,
>
Hello list,
this is my first post here, so hope I don't get too flamed (at least
not yet). :)
I'm implementing a few traps using net-snmp 5.2.3 (know it isn't the
latest, but it's stable), but looks like I'm missing something. When I
ran snmpd, it gave me this error everytime my send_trap functio
On 17/08/06, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. Any objections to change include/net-snmp/system/*.h
> accordingly? Then, still, shouldn't we also change
>
> MODULECPP="$CPP -D$PARTIALTARGETOS ..."
>
> to
>
> MODULECPP="$CPP -D$PARTIALTARGETOS=$PARTIALTARGETOS ..."
>
> in confi
> TA> I tend to think that e.g. the disman/event-mib warnings aren't as
> TA> appropriate as in 5.3 anymore and should be relaxed.
>
> I'd tend to agree.
I'd tend to have removed the warning, then :-)
> TA> we've been discussing (and adding) warnings for 5.3 back then, e.g. ...
> the
> TA> "de
On 17/08/06, rajasekhar kavuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my snmp manager is onle able to get the system
> group oid.
This is covered under the FAQ entries
"I can see the system group, but nothing else. Why?"
&
"How do I configure access control?"
> last time i have requested this questi
hai,i am using net-snmp-5.2.1 version. O.S :: Fedora cor 4.i am not able to make the entire mib2 into working condition. Can any one help me the how to proceed. my snmp manager is onle able to get the system group oid. i need the othe oid of my mib to give responce to my snmp manager. i am held her
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:35:09 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Leo Lei wrote:
TA> > why not a directive like "subagent master" instead of -X?
TA>
TA> Good question. Is there a good reason (e.g. existing initialization
TA> details) for not supporting such a config directive (as an alternative
TA> to "-X")?
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:01:38 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> we've been discussing (and adding) warnings for 5.3 back then, e.g. the
TA> configure warning for disman/event-mib vs. disman/event and the
TA> "deprecated" warning for exec.
...
TA> I tend to think that e.g. the disman/event-mib warnings aren't
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I'd rather still try to go down this line as it seems to be the
> cleanest, IMHO. I'd propose that in the system .h files we should
> require defining the os definitions in the same way... IE,
>
> #define osf4
>
> is in there now but I think it should be:
>
> #define
[this shouldn't have been a private conversation to begin with, but it
was so I'll move it to -coders where it should be. Topic: my recent
changes to configure and the inclusion of the system/*.h headers.]
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> + echo "#undef $PARTIALT
On 17/08/06, Siva Prakash Reddy G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > what does "ls -l snmpd" display?
>
> ls -l snmpd displays "ls: snmpd: No such file or directory"
Then that's why
" ./snmpd -Lf /var/log/snmpd.log -Dieee802dot11_persistent"
failed.
If the binary is not present, how can the
Title: net-snmp on Mac OSX
Can anyone tell me now to compile and get working net-snmp 5.3.1 on 10.4.7 Server? At the moment, I’m following this procedure.
1) Install DarwinPorts 1.2.1 on 10.4.7 Server.
2) gcc_select – default compiler gcc 4.0.0 (Apple build 4061)
3) snmpd –v – net-snmp 5.2.1
Title: Message
Hi!
> what does "ls -l
snmpd" display?
ls -l snmpd displays "ls: snmpd: No such file or
directory" when i gave space betw
On 16/08/06, Scott Moynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is a patch to fix a segfault that I was experiencing on x86_64
> Linux host running net-snmp 5.3.0.
Thanks - that's now been applied to the 5.3.x and main development lines.
Dave
-
On 17/08/06, Siva Prakash Reddy G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. How to enable DEBUGMSGTL(); ie., debug messages.
-D{token}
> 2. when i am trying to run this command
> " ./snmpd -Lf /var/log/snmpd.log -Dieee802dot11_persistent"
>
> it is displaying " -bash: ./snmpd: No such file or
Hello,
Attached is a patch to fix a segfault that I was experiencing on x86_64
Linux host running net-snmp 5.3.0.
The issue is that incorrect types are passed to netsnmp_hex_to_binary
which are cast unsafely causing a buffer overflow. I think the patch is
trivially correct, but if you want m
Title: Message
Hi!
1. How to
enable DEBUGMSGTL(); ie., debug
messages.
2. when i am trying t
34 matches
Mail list logo
