On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 20:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Dave> I also spotted a related change to the CVS code recently,
> Dave> whereby you seemed to provide a default value for this setting.
> Dave> Care to explain why?
>
> I've lost track of the discussion and whether this default
> was removed
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:16:44 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> This whole mechanism is Wes' private invention :-)
Oh like *you* don't have those as well ;-) HA!
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
---
This SF.Net email
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:10:29 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> I also spotted a related change to the CVS code recently,
Dave> whereby you seemed to provide a default value for this setting.
Dave> Care to explain why?
I've lost track of the discussion and whether this defaul
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:21:29 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
DS> Nope. They just specify what name should be used. They don't
DS> actually create the user, or set up suitable access control
DS> configuration. Both of these have to be done separately.
Robert> Odd. I've used
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:16:44 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> [BTW - I don't know if you heard about the fire in
DS> Bristol, that completely gutted the Aardman Animation
DS> warehouse. Almost all the stuff relating to earlier
DS> Wallace and Gromit films has been destroyed :-( ]
Yeah, it made slashd
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 06:52 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
RS> agentSecName wallace
RS> monitor
RS> ...
RS> iquerySecName grommit
RS> monitor
RS>
RS> Would both monitor statements work?
DS> They'd certainly both work.
DS> The question is what ac
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:12:19 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > It is possible that something set up by the first token would
DS> > be confused or get broken by the appearance of the second? eg
DS> >
DS> > agentSecName wallace
DS> > monitor
DS> > ...
DS> > iquerySecName grommit
DS> > monitor *
DS> There's
DS> nothing inherently different between that situation, and a pair
DS> of 'agentSecName'/'iquerySecName' settings.
> Yes there is - mainly that the user has no idea that they are referring
> to the same thing!
They will if they can be bothered to read the documentation.
(Once I've ha
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:17:49 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> There's
DS> nothing inherently different between that situation, and a pair
DS> of 'agentSecName'/'iquerySecName' settings.
Yes there is - mainly that the user has no idea that they are referring to the
same thing!
DS> I'm inclined to rely on pr
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 20:02 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> "agentSecName" is for backward compatibility with previous releases.
> DS> "iquerySecName" felt to be a more appropriate name.
>
> Then I strongly suggest that some error checking be introduced to check for
> both being used, and issue a
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:10:29 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > Did you intend to set up multiple conf tokens to map to the same value?
DS>
DS> > netsnmp_ds_register_config(ASN_OCTET_STR, "snmpd", "agentSecName",
DS> > netsnmp_ds_register_config(ASN_OCTET_STR, "snmpd", "iquerySecName",
DS>
DS>
DS> Y
> Did you intend to set up multiple conf tokens to map to the same value?
> netsnmp_ds_register_config(ASN_OCTET_STR, "snmpd", "agentSecName",
> netsnmp_ds_register_config(ASN_OCTET_STR, "snmpd", "iquerySecName",
Yes.
"agentSecName" is for backward compatibility with previous releases.
"
Dave,
Did you intend to set up multiple conf tokens to map to the same value?
void init_iquery(void){
netsnmp_ds_register_config(ASN_OCTET_STR, "snmpd", "agentSecName",
NETSNMP_DS_APPLICATION_ID,
NETSNMP_DS_AGENT_INTERNAL_SECNAME);
13 matches
Mail list logo
