Details:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3141462&group_id=12694&atid=312694
Patch (attached)
We actually need two votes now per patch now:
- 5.6.1 (now in rc1)
- 5.5.1 (now in pre1)
I'm a yes for both. Though 5.6.1 is a harder call.
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all repl
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:15:12 -0800 (PST), sujata patra
> said:
sp> Thanks Wes. That's right . I have got it now and able to progress . I was
sp> confused whether to make tree structure .
Tree structures are not supported by SMIv2 (the MIB language). If
you're getting the point of ne
From: Wes Hardaker
To: sujata patra
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 6:11:08 AM
Subject: Re: doubt in nested table implementation
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:43:26 -0800 (PST), sujata patra
> said:
sp> I have impl
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Jan Safranek wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 11:21 PM, Robert Story wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:16:54 -0500 Bill wrote:
>> BF> I'm not sure what to suggest as a solution. For those who use
>> BF> net-snmp as the agent on a router, where asymmetric routing like th
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Wes Hardaker
wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:43:56 -0500, Robert Story
>> said:
>
> BF> (I've already diffed agent/mibgroup/agentx between 5.5 and 5.6, it's
> BF> almost all cleanups that can't explain this; there's something more
> BF> subtle going on s
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:39:15 -0800 Wes wrote:
WH> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:44:20 -0500, Robert Story
said:
WH>
WH> GN> localCert peerCert
WH>
WH> RS> That works for me. That would even align with some internal defines
WH> RS> which also use peer.
WH>
WH> Those are fine with me too.
WH>
WH
On 21 December 2010 15:39, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> GN> localCert peerCert
> Those are fine with me too.
> But I also thought we might need more than just 2...
How about a single directive "cert", with the first parameter indicating
the type/scope/colour/etc of the certificate
i.e.
cert loca
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:44:20 -0500, Robert Story
> said:
GN> localCert peerCert
RS> That works for me. That would even align with some internal defines
RS> which also use peer.
Those are fine with me too.
But I also thought we might need more than just 2...
/me waits to see the pat
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 06:45:19AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I don't see a problem with it personally. Though I'd be tempted, if
> we're going to expose them, to add a netsnmp_ prefix to them first...
+1
/Niels
--
Niels Baggesen - @home - Århus - Denmark - [email protected]
The pur
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:07:46 -0500, Bill Fenner said:
BF> I would like to request that the prototypes for
BF> void debug_print_registered_tokens(void);
BF> int debug_enable_token_logs(const char *);
BF> int debug_disable_token_logs(const char *);
BF> be exposed in a net-snmp header file.
10 matches
Mail list logo