Not ideal; but I guess it'll have to do for now.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 04/05/18 16:38, Lee wrote:
> > On 4/5/18, Keith Mendoza wrote:
> >> So again, at what point do we stop adding code to net-snmp because
> >> ISP's are messing around as if they're doing u
On 04/05/18 16:38, Lee wrote:
> On 4/5/18, Keith Mendoza wrote:
>> So again, at what point do we stop adding code to net-snmp because
>> ISP's are messing around as if they're doing us a favor by letting us
>> use their services?
>
> Since people don't read the docs, how about adding a test to se
On 4/5/18, Keith Mendoza wrote:
> So again, at what point do we stop adding code to net-snmp because
> ISP's are messing around as if they're doing us a favor by letting us
> use their services?
Since people don't read the docs, how about adding a test to see if
dns is borked; if it is link to a
So again, at what point do we stop adding code to net-snmp because
ISP's are messing around as if they're doing us a favor by letting us
use their services?
Thanks,
Keith
Thanks,
Keith
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 04/04/18 09:30, Keith Mendoza wrote:
>>
>> I actua
On 04/04/18 09:30, Keith Mendoza wrote:
I actually found no.such.address in line 79 of T070com2sec_simple.
That host has been hijacked by barefruit.co.uk who "generates highly
targeted traffic for ISPs by replacing DNS and HTTP errors with
relevant advertising"; which is now causing the test case
Bart,
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 03/31/18 22:19, Keith Mendoza wrote:
>>
>> I personally feel that whoever is running the automated tests should
>> make the necessary changes to their environment to resolve any
>> hostname that is needed to run the tests.
>
>
> I
On 03/31/18 22:19, Keith Mendoza wrote:
I personally feel that whoever is running the automated tests should
make the necessary changes to their environment to resolve any
hostname that is needed to run the tests.
I don't have root access to the BSD and AIX systems that I use for
testing Net-S
I personally feel that whoever is running the automated tests should
make the necessary changes to their environment to resolve any
hostname that is needed to run the tests. In my case,
onea.net-snmp.org and twoa.net-snmp.org resolves to IP's in the
127.0.0.0/24 network; however no.such.address res
On 03/22/18 12:22, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Bart Van Assche :
Hello Eric,
These are the only two tests that sometimes fail on my test setup. Whether
or not these tests pass depends on your DNS server. If I e.g. add
"nameserver 8.8.8.8" as the first entry in /etc/resolv.conf then these tests
pass
On 03/25/2018 07:20 PM, Ian Bruene wrote:
The actual tests that are failing for me now: [snip]
I finally tracked down the issue: snmpd crashes before it ever creates
the pid file:
snmpd: error while loading shared libraries: libnetsnmpagent.so.35:
cannot open shared object file: No such
Apologies for only just now getting into this, excuse of finishing other
projects.
On 03/21/2018 10:41 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Ian and I note that the test suite seems a bit compromised.
On current Ubuntu, Intel x86_64, stock build, two tests - 1 and 31
fail out of the box.
We see those sa
On 03/22/18 12:22, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Bart Van Assche :
Hello Eric,
These are the only two tests that sometimes fail on my test setup. Whether
or not these tests pass depends on your DNS server. If I e.g. add
"nameserver 8.8.8.8" as the first entry in /etc/resolv.conf then these tests
pass
Bart Van Assche :
> Hello Eric,
>
> These are the only two tests that sometimes fail on my test setup. Whether
> or not these tests pass depends on your DNS server. If I e.g. add
> "nameserver 8.8.8.8" as the first entry in /etc/resolv.conf then these tests
> pass on my setup. I think the reason i
Bill Fenner :
> So before, you meant you failed test 31 of the "com2sec directive" suite?
I'm not even sure that's what I saw. My apologies, I'm new to this code and
the test output is somwhat confusing.
> Try "cd testing; SNMP_VERBOSE=2 ./RUNFULLTESTS -v -r T070com2sec" to get
> more detail abou
On 03/21/18 20:41, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Ian and I note that the test suite seems a bit compromised.
Hello Eric,
When running compile tests and the test suite I think it is a good idea
to enable as many Net-SNMP features as possible. You may want to have a
look at the attached shell scripts
On 03/22/18 05:33, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Now I'm getting a different result, which is a little disturbing in itself:
com2sec directive (Wstat:
256 Tests: 31 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 30
Non-zero exit status: 1
Files=76, Tests=327, 109 wa
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Bill Fenner :
> > By "test 31" do you mean "snmpv1 traps are sent by snmpd API"?
>
> Now I'm getting a different result, which is a little disturbing in itself:
>
> com2sec directive
> (Wstat: 256 Tests: 31 Failed: 1)
> Failed test: 30
Bill Fenner :
> The configure script test can fail if you've regenerated it using autoconf
> but not using 2.68.
Running 2.69.
I never ran autoconf explicitly, just configure as per instructions.
> By "test 31" do you mean "snmpv1 traps are sent by snmpd API"?
Now I'm getting a different result
I have an unofficial Travis build setup; in it the only tests that fail are
because the Travis environment seems to not have even localhost IPv6
available: https://travis-ci.org/fenner/net-snmp
The configure script test can fail if you've regenerated it using autoconf
but not using 2.68.
By "test
Ian and I note that the test suite seems a bit compromised.
On current Ubuntu, Intel x86_64, stock build, two tests - 1 and 31
fail out of the box.
We see those same failures on ARM (a RasPi 3).
But Ian's laptop gives a diffeent and larger list of errors.
Are there known pastform dependencies i
20 matches
Mail list logo
