i installed net-snmp-5.3.2 on fedora11 platform below process
=
./configure --host=i386-linux --build=ppc-linux --target=ppc-linux --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --enable-shared --disable-debugging --ena
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:21:56 +0100 Magnus wrote:
MF> B)
MF> ---foo.h---
MF> #ifdef NETSNMP_DISABLE_FOO
MF> #define foo()
MF> #else
MF> extern void foo();
MF> #endif
MF> ---foo.c---
MF> #ifndef NETSNMP_DISABLE_FOO
MF> void foo() { /* do foo things */ }
MF> #endif
B, but I'd but the real function st
On 03/24/2010 02:14 PM, Robert Story wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:54:15 +0100 Jan wrote:
> JS> > What is the intended interpretation of these three return values?
> JS> >
> JS> > -1 seems to indicate an invalid or unrecognised option value
> JS> > -2 seems to indicate that process
[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On 24
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 08:28 +, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 21:21, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > Which version of disabling is the better one:
>
> In general, I'd prefer either A or B.
> A has the advantage of allowing us to issue suitable
> warning or error messages.
> I.e.
>
> A')
>
On 24 March 2010 21:21, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Which version of disabling is the better one:
In general, I'd prefer either A or B.
A has the advantage of allowing us to issue suitable
warning or error messages.
I.e.
A')
---foo.c---
#ifdef NETSNMP_DISABLE_FOO
void foo() { printf("Foo not suppo
