RS> I was thinking of moving the signal registration, for the signals which RS> are ignored, into one of the init routines.
RS> Does that sound reasonable? It is a change in behavior for the agent RS> library..... Though there is a good argument for it, as it does RS> cause a crash for a not-unreasonable error condition. WH> I would argue it was a bug anyway so it'd be tempting to put it in 5.2.1 WH> or so if not 5.1.mumble. DS> Like what the man said. DS> I'd probably be a bit more hesitant about 5.1.x, DS> but it seems fine for 5.2.1. Robert> Hmmm.. why the difference between 5.1.x and 5.2.x? The 5.1.x line is established, (reasonably) stable code. The 5.2.x line is new, relatively untested code. As such, I'm much happier about changing (questionable) behaviour in the 5.2 line than I am with the older releases. If you use early releases of a particular feature, you *expect* things to change as they bed down. If you're using "high-numbered" releases, then such changed are more likely to come as a shock..... So as a general rule, changes that might be OK (or borderline) for x.y.1 or x.y.2 releases, may well not be appropriate for x.y.6 and beyond. Does that make sense? Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
