On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:32:36AM +0200, Thomas Anders wrote:
> is there a good reason why "make install" currently installs all of
> include/net-snmp/system/*.h and not just the one(s) for the system in
> question?
> Even cross-compiling only has a *single* target system, so why? Is it only to
>
-Coders,
is there a good reason why "make install" currently installs all of
include/net-snmp/system/*.h and not just the one(s) for the system in question?
Even cross-compiling only has a *single* target system, so why? Is it only to
save us from having to figure out which one we need (since for
On 16/08/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > A white paper on building minimal Net-SNMP might be interesting
> And here I was afraid I was volunteering to write it. ;-)
We look forward to seeing what you come up with :-)
Seriously though, the tw
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A white paper on building minimal Net-SNMP might be interesting
>
> http://www.net-snmp.org/FAQ.html#How_can_I_reduce_the_memory_footprint_
>
http://www.net-snmp.org/FAQ.html#How_can_I_reduce_the_installation_footprint_or_speed_up_compilation_
And here I was afr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A white paper on building minimal Net-SNMP might be interesting
http://www.net-snmp.org/FAQ.html#How_can_I_reduce_the_memory_footprint_
http://www.net-snmp.org/FAQ.html#How_can_I_reduce_the_installation_footprint_or_speed_up_compilation_
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Assumed we succeed in improving configure this way: are there
> > > any objectionsagainst turning on embedded perl by default in 5.4?
> >
> > We use Net-SNMP in an embedded system. I wouldn't want the default
> > build to grow any. (I'll keep my religious aversi
On 16/08/06, Siva Prakash Reddy G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are var_ routine and write_ routine, Here write_ routine
> is executed during SET,
If you're using the "traditional" (v4 UCD) module API, yes.
The newer v5 helper-based modules use a different approach.
>when
(moved to -coders)
Leo Lei wrote:
> why not a directive like "subagent master" instead of -X?
Good question. Is there a good reason (e.g. existing initialization
details) for not supporting such a config directive (as an alternative
to "-X")?
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-ca
Title: Message
Hi!
There are var_
routine and write_ routine, Here write_ routine is executed
during SET,
