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
On 24 March 2010 13:14, 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 processing ha
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 processing has been completed
JS> >
JS> > What is the distinctive ci
On 03/24/2010 01:50 PM, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 11:10, Jan Safranek wrote:
>> In trunk I've made following change to fix a bug:
>>
>> It adds new negative return value to netsnmp_parse_args and
>> snmp_parse_args, which should be handled by callers (=applications).
>
> What is the in
On 24 March 2010 11:10, Jan Safranek wrote:
> In trunk I've made following change to fix a bug:
>
> It adds new negative return value to netsnmp_parse_args and
> snmp_parse_args, which should be handled by callers (=applications).
What is the intended interpretation of these three return values?
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:10:44 +0100 Jan wrote:
JS> It adds new negative return value to netsnmp_parse_args and
JS> snmp_parse_args, which should be handled by callers (=applications).
JS> I've of course changed our applications in apps/ directory.
JS>
JS> My question is, if it's allowed to put th
In trunk I've made following change to fix a bug:
On 03/24/2010 11:47 AM, jsafra...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Revision: 18358
>http://net-snmp.svn.sourceforge.net/net-snmp/?rev=18358&view=rev
> Author: jsafranek
> Date: 2010-03-24 10:47:21 + (Wed, 24 Mar 2010)
>
> Log Me
