On 21/07/2011, at 6:41 PM, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 21 July 2011 00:46, Ben Nizette wrote:
>>> No - but -fstack-protector *is* listed in the LTCFLAGS variable within the
>>> libtool script.
>>>
>>> Ben - try removing this option from there, and re-running
On 20/07/2011, at 5:50 PM, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 07:20, Niels Baggesen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:17:02AM +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:
>>> During configure, a number of little test programs are compiled
>>> and linked (as I'm sure you'
On 20/07/2011, at 4:20 PM, Niels Baggesen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:17:02AM +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:
>> During configure, a number of little test programs are compiled
>> and linked (as I'm sure you're aware) but the linker gets passed
>> -fstack-prot
Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On fre, 2007-12-21 at 16:31 +1100, Ben Nizette wrote:
>> What ever the problem with sockets is, it's a different one, that
>> transport was built in. But not to worry.
>
> Yes, but it is interesting as it should work.
>
Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On fre, 2007-12-21 at 11:56 +1100, Ben Nizette wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I cannot correctly attached agentx subagents to my snmpd. If attempting
>> to use unix sockets, the attach just fails with "No Checked Transport
>> Domain" bu
Hello,
I cannot correctly attached agentx subagents to my snmpd. If attempting
to use unix sockets, the attach just fails with "No Checked Transport
Domain" but that's fine, they attach just OK over udp.
Once attached over UDP, the ping and response packets head backwards and
forwards just nice
Hi all,
Being very new to snmp I'm struggling a little with an mfd table at the
moment. The table is very very simple, if I have the fully qualified
OID then simple external code can return the value without a problem.
Processing of getnext shouldn't be hard either, so long as I know how a
table
