Ah, the conflict occured when compiling with our application, not when
compiling netsnmp itself...
Both patches still make sense in my opinion.
Whom do I assign this to?
Cheers,
Thijs
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Thijs Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damn: see latest comment
Damn: see latest comment in track 1737727.
Will report back when I have more data.
Cheers,
Thijs
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Thijs Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, just forgot about them (well I hope I can partially blame my
> new 'brilliantly'
Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On mån, 2007-09-17 at 13:23 +0200, Thijs Brouwer wrote:
>> Ok, I hope to be able to submit the patches tonight.
>
> Ok, I know this is a very late followup but the patches seem to never
> have showed
Ok, I hope to be able to submit the patches tonight.
On 9/12/07, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Shield schrieb:
> > I'm inclined to suggest that the problematic #defines are protected by
> > #ifndef NETSNMP_NO_LEGACY_DEFINITIONS
> >
> > and that the config also sets up
> >
> > #if
Hey,
Would like to raise this question to the top of the stack once more.
It has evolved into two questions.
- Do we want to move the RONLY, RWRITE, NOACCESS defines?
- Which of NETSNMP_NO_LEGACY_DEFINITIONS or NETSNMP_CLEAN_NAMESPACE do
we use to hide the old defines.
For the first question I c
Ok, looks like it would be logical to change all three of them when
any renaming is done. But having such generic defines in a header
seems dangerous. At one point or another, there's going to be
trouble...
On 6/19/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Patch 1737727 brings up an interes
questions are most welcome.
Best regards, and happy new year! :-)
Thijs Brouwer
diff -ur net-snmp-5.4-orig/configure net-snmp-5.4/configure
--- net-snmp-5.4-orig/configure 2006-11-24 17:56:15.0 +
+++ net-snmp-5.4/configure 2006-12-17 20:19:02.0 +
@@ -31768,7 +31768,7
ed in the net-snmp project which I can
use? If not, is there one outside the project which would be easy to
incorporate? I can write one myself, but I guess this has been done a
million times before by people much smarter than me.
Best regards!
Thijs
Thijs Brouwer wrote:
>Ok, I'll d
Ok, I'll do it that way. Thanks.
Robert Story wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:24:34 +0100 Thijs wrote:
>TB> Problem description: we need to include an extra header in snmp_api.h
>TB> (sys/poll.h), [...]
>TB>
>TB> Is there a smart way to add these includes for the poll.h in all the
>TB> files th
Hello all,
We are working here on an extension of the snmp_api to deal with large
filehandles. Some small modifications of the methods snmp_read and
snmp_select_info are involved (allow for usage of the poll() interface,
fd_set only allows for a limited fd size: will send in a patch proposal
a
10 matches
Mail list logo
