> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:55:24 +0100, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> If nothing needs a particular feature, why isn't the code for that
DS> feature omitted automatically by default?
It is omitted by default if --with-minimalist is in the flag list.
The flag is not on by default at this time be
On 1 September 2011 15:31, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> DS> Secondly, how do I know what is meant by "needless" code?
> It's at the function level. Once all the mib modules, etc, have been
> picked then at compile time it makes a first pass looking through all
> the code for netsnmp_feature_request()
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:57:56 +0100, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> First of all, what is meant by the "running executable"?
DS> Is this talking about the agent, or the command-line tools,
DS> or what?
DS> Secondly, how do I know what is meant by "needless" code?
DS> Needless for what?For
On 31 August 2011 20:27, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> DS> Request for clarification:
> DS> What is the idea behind "minimalist" (?minimialist?!?),
> DS> and how does this compare with the traditional "--enable-mini-agent" ?
> The minimalist support simply removes the code that
> "needless adds to the
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:19:34 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> said:
MF> --enable-minimalist implies --enable-mini-agent, something I think
MF> is wrong as I can see a use for a non-mini-agent where some feature
MF> is removed so I suppose I have to make sure that
MF> --disable-mini-agent work
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:55:44 +0100, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> Request for clarification:
DS> What is the idea behind "minimalist" (?minimialist?!?),
DS> and how does this compare with the traditional "--enable-mini-agent" ?
To quote:
http://www.net-snmp.org/wiki/index.php/Feature_M
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Dave Shield wrote:
>
> Request for clarification:
>What is the idea behind "minimalist" (?minimialist?!?),
> and how does this compare with the traditional "--enable-mini-agent" ?
--enable-minimalist enables the feature removal code that was introdu
On 31 August 2011 00:42, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> MF> I agree on this part as well, and admit that I am at a loss for what
> MF> to call the flag. Ideas appreciated here. (by the way,
> MF> enable-minimalist-including-wants is confusing as it excludes,
> MF> rather than includes, the wants)
>
> enabl
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:51:02 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> said:
MF> I agree on this part as well, and admit that I am at a loss for what
MF> to call the flag. Ideas appreciated here. (by the way,
MF> enable-minimalist-including-wants is confusing as it excludes,
MF> rather than includes,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:36:15AM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:54:10 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> > said:
>
> MF> I think feature-remove should
>
> It took me a while to get around to following the logic.
>
> Fundamentally, if I got it right, you want the default
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:54:10 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> said:
MF> I think feature-remove should
It took me a while to get around to following the logic.
Fundamentally, if I got it right, you want the default result of the
feature_want() to actually not get it.
This would be a change
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 08:25 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:52:31 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> > said:
>
> MF> If I want to build with all code that is required or wanted by something
> MF> I have configured then I give configure the flag --enable-minimalist -
> MF> Is
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:52:31 +0200, Magnus Fromreide
> said:
MF> If I want to build with all code then I give configure the flag
MF> --disable-minimalist (or nothing as this is the default) - Is this
MF> correct?
That is the default, so it shouldn't be needed.
MF> If I want to build
13 matches
Mail list logo
