> DS> Bottom line:
> DS> If I do:
> DS> tar zxf net-snmp-5.1.2.tar.gz
> DS> cd net-snmp-5.1.2
>
> That would be 5.2.0...
Yup - of course. Silly mistake.
> DS> ./configure
> DS> make
> DS> make install
> DS> snmpd
> DS> snm
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:11:36 -0400, Robert Story (Coders) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Robert> Not right now, but it *should* in the immediate future, and
Robert> *will* before 5.2.0 goes out...
Good by me.
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta
-
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:30:28 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Hmmm. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by
DS>"enable the new modules, and exclude the others"
DS> I thought that meant include the ipNetToPhysicalTable, etc,
DS> but not the older ones (such as atTable). Was that wrong?
No,that
DS> Will the ipNetToPhysicalTable be included by default, or an optional
DS> module (to be configured in explicitly) ?
Robert> The current cvs is either/or. The --enable-mfd-rewrites would
Robert> enable the new modules, and exclude the others.
DS> And the default is to use the traditional code -
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:52:33 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> DS> My gut reaction is to wait [...]
DS>
DS> Robert> Sounds reasonable. The only reason I asked is that we are rapidly
DS> Robert> approaching 5.2. So the question was, should we release the code
DS> Robert> with the wrong name.
DS>
DS> As long
DS> Has the numeric OID actually changed?
Robert> Yep. It changed by one.
Oops - missed that.
DS> My gut reaction is to wait - stick with what you've got at the moment
DS> When this finally appears as an RFC, then *that's* the time to rename
DS> the implementation files, etc. Once it's
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:04:09 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > The question is: should I nuke the code in CVS and re-add with the new
DS> > name(and hope it doesn't change again), or just update the OID and live
DS> > with the name inconsistency?
DS>
DS> Has the numeric OID actually changed?
Yep. It change
> There is a mfd implementation of inetNetToMediaTable in CVS
> Unfortunately, in the latest draft, they
> renamed the table to ipNetToPhysicalTable.
> They didn't change objects; just the table name.
Hmmm
That's one of the problems in implementing from an I-Draft, I suppose.
> The ques
