On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:10:39 +0200 Magnus wrote: MF> > Given that this problem seems to appear in the 5.2.x line, MF> > should the same fix be applied there too? What about 5.1.x ? MF> MF> As it is somewhat problematic (the issue of the lost additional port MF> specifier) I think that it shouldn't be pushed to far, but 5.2 sounds safe.
I agree... applied to 5.2.x. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
