Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:40 PM, Robert Story wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2018 03:13:34 +0200 Magnus wrote: > MF> > Yes, but it doesn't break for a default configure, which is > MF> > the criteria for a show stopper in the RC phase. Of course +3 > MF> > votes for anything is an

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, 15 May 2018 17:00:10 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> Robert Story writes: WH> WH> > We're at +2 now (assuming an implied +1 from your WH> > message/tone). WH> WH> Yeah, I thought I had indicated +1 explicitly. I didn't, my WH> bad. To me, this *is* a show stopper. So +1.

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Wed, 16 May 2018 03:13:34 +0200 Magnus wrote: MF> > Yes, but it doesn't break for a default configure, which is MF> > the criteria for a show stopper in the RC phase. Of course +3 MF> > votes for anything is an automatic show stopper too, so we're MF> > one vote away from that. MF> MF> +1

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:01:12PM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:12:18 -0700 Wes wrote: > WH> Robert Story writes: > WH> > WH> > On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: > WH> > BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be > WH> > BF>

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:12:18 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> Robert Story writes: WH> WH> > On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: WH> > BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be WH> > BF> conditional. My proposed patch is WH> > WH> > I don't think this meets

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

Robert Story writes: > We're at +2 now (assuming an implied +1 from your message/tone). Yeah, I thought I had indicated +1 explicitly. I didn't, my bad. To me, this *is* a show stopper. So +1. -- Wes Hardaker Please mail all replies to

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:07:29 -0700 Bart wrote: BVA> On 05/15/18 10:57, Robert Story wrote: BVA> > On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: BVA> > BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be BVA> > BF> conditional. My proposed patch is BVA> > BVA> > I don't think this meets the

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

Robert Story writes: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: > BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be conditional. > BF> My proposed patch is > > I don't think this meets the criteria for a show-stopper, since > it's not part of the default build. It

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On 05/15/18 10:57, Robert Story wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be conditional. BF> My proposed patch is I don't think this meets the criteria for a show-stopper, since it's not part of the default build. -1 Hello

Re: RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:25:03 -0400 Bill wrote: BF> Since snmpping requires set support, it should be conditional. BF> My proposed patch is I don't think this meets the criteria for a show-stopper, since it's not part of the default build. -1

RFC: fix --enable-read-only build failure due to snmpping

Since snmpping requires set support, it should be conditional. My proposed patch is https://github.com/fenner/net-snmp/commit/b6e69f9ccbadcb7d4a49a4a6020ef932e84bbc5c The build with --enable-read-only now succeeds, as can be seen by the fact that we got to tests: