> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:47:23 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > CRC> > ... > CRC> > As far as future compatibility goes, getting the kernel to > CRC> > recognize your interfaces is the best option. If that's not > possible,CRC> > then you'll have to maintain proprietary patches > against net-snmp. > CRC> > CRC> Robert, I know you're the expert here but I've got non- > standard Interfaces > CRC> working without patching code. I disabled interfaces in the > agent (-I > CRC> -interfaces) and then have a sub-agent which implements > interfaces > Well, I consider removing some code (-I -interfaces) and adding > other code > (subagent) a form of patching. i.e. it isn't going to work out of > the box.
I guess we have a problem of definition then. I'm not "patching" unless I have to keep track of my changes and update distributed source with `patch`. (And my -I is done at runtime, not build time). > CRC> I'd _love_ to be > CRC> able to have both and another active thread on this list > (ManagingCRC> multiple instances of a MIB) suggests I can. > > Summarizing from my FAQ here: > > http://www.freesnmp.com/net-snmp/faqs/#multidev > > You can have both by using contexts, but: > ... > Having said that, there is another way to have both, but it does > have some > risks. See my next response to Jeff in this same thread. OK. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ 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
