On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:56:50 -0400 Andy wrote: AS> What about moving it up a level into snmp.conf, or if we are spwaning AS> more config files then maybe snmptools.conf.
gack! blech! ptuii! No, no spawning of new config files. We already have to check for too many as is. AS> The applications should be AS> capable of ignoring config lines that they are not interested in, No, they aren't. At least not currently. It is all handled by the library. AS> there are the module specific tags that have become a topic of AS> discussion lately to keep things organized. I think you are referring to the host specific tags, for setting different defaults for different hosts. That included a discussion about mixing application type handlers (eg snmp.conf directives in snmpd.conf), but I don't recall anything about module tags. Might just be semantic confusion, though. AS> Either adding tag seperated sections to snmp.conf You can just a cross-pollinate conf files with other tokens willy-nilly. For one thing, applications that use the library might not have a parser registered for a particular token, and thus will spit out errors. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-users> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
