On Sun, 6 May 2018 09:31:37 -0400 Bill wrote: BF> I think feature parity is a good thing. How close are you to BF> having BF> > this patch ready? I'd say create a branch for it and push it BF> > to teh SF or github repo. Seeing the actual patch will help BF> > me form my opinion on rc1 (maybe if you're quick), 5.8.1 BF> > (seams reasonable, but does it change any existing ABI?), or BF> > 5.9. BF> BF> The patch: BF> https://github.com/fenner/net-snmp/commit/28144b2831ab544ea9e63e2b9585d1f1d58422ad BF> A couple of trivial lines in snmp_parse_args, plus an exact BF> replica of the code from _sess_open in agent_trap.c.
Hmm.. maybe from an older branch? Anyways, I applied it and made a few minor tweaks. BF> The tests: BF> https://github.com/fenner/net-snmp/commit/41be11b4e3ab93cda376bf044de2f77534b56518 BF> (T180 and T181 fail. T181 is testing the new functionality in BF> 5.8, so, no biggie. T180 tests functionality that worked in BF> 5.7.3. T182 and T183 pass; this maybe makes the other failures BF> less bad since if a user wants this behavior they can configure BF> the session using trapsess instead of trap*sink). BF> (I think the "myip" perl script belongs in support, not in BF> fulltests/default/; I'll move it before i commit to the master BF> branch.) I'm going to skip these for rc1. What do we need to make the tests pass? BF> The bugfix: BF> T182 fails without BF> https://github.com/fenner/net-snmp/commit/f714d0a7790c477f63e5f56f65a922c0c460432a That fix has been applied too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
