On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:19:30 +0100 Thomas wrote:
TA> I agree in principle, but instead of "hacking" the new code for the old
TA> options we may also ship a *wrapper* program (in C/sh/whatever) that
TA> translates old to new options and calls the new code with this. This'd
TA> have the advantage
Dave Shield wrote:
If we're going to ship the new code with 5.2.2, then it *MUST*
be hacked to use the original command options, IMO.
I agree in principle, but instead of "hacking" the new code for the old
options we may also ship a *wrapper* program (in C/sh/whatever) that
translates old to
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 00:29 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote:
> > The one thing that I'd suggest is that we don't actually
> > release another 5.2.2 tarball (whether rc4 or pre4), until
> > the new snmpnetstat code is in place - assuming that's the
> > way we're going to play things.
>
> I'm confused no
Dave Shield wrote:
I haven't been counting properly, but that feels
like the necessary level of support. It's probably
OK to go ahead and apply this patch.
Wes, will you do?
The one thing that I'd suggest is that we don't actually
release another 5.2.2 tarball (whether rc4 or pre4), until
th
>> I think it should go in to 5.2.2
> +1
I haven't been counting properly, but that feels
like the necessary level of support. It's probably
OK to go ahead and apply this patch.
The one thing that I'd suggest is that we don't actually
release another 5.2.2 tarball (whether rc4 or pre4), until
t
>I think it should go in to 5.2.2
+1
Given what I have to go through to release binaries, I don't want to do
5.2.2 then immmediately have to turn around and do 5.2.2.1.
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal an
Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:57:23 +, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
However, I've analyzed the patch extensively (having wrote it) and
it's very self-contained. The patch to snmp_perl.c is trivial because
that file is only complied if turned on in the first place. The
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:05:53 + Dave wrote:
DS>a) Looking at the possibility of including embedded perl
DS> support within the default build (with suitable checks
DS> to ensure the environment is suitable, naturally).
DS> *and*
DS>b) Writing a "make test" case to check that t
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 07:57 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Dave> - does the default configuration compile successfully?
Wes> I've always argued that that's not a fair test. We should be
Wes> determining if the most common code fails that test, not just
Wes> the default build.
Two comments:
a) I'
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:57:23 +, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> This comprised two basic tests - these being:
Dave> - does the default configuration compile successfully?
I've always argued that that's not a fair test. We should be
determining if the most common code fails
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:59 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
> > By the criteria I proposed last year, this means that it
> > doesn't fall into the category of "show stopper", and so
> > the fix should wait until after the 5.2.2 release.
>
> I strongly disagree.
> I still call the
Dave Shield wrote:
Thomas> I definitely consider this a show stopper for 5.2.2.
Thomas> Major, recommended functionality that is fully broken
Thomas> MUST get repaired.
I would question whether embedded perl support qualifies as
"major, recommended functionality". It's not included as
part of
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 08:18 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote:
Wes> Thus, I have two patches (which I'll commit to main)
Wes> but I'm not sure what to do about 5.2.2.
Thomas> I definitely consider this a show stopper for 5.2.2.
Thomas> Major, recommended functionality that is fully broken
Thomas> MUST g
Wes Hardaker wrote:
The configure script checks for embedded perl functions broke
recently, but it was not apparent until Thomas A. noticed it. The
fact that no one noticed was probably due to the way the #ifdefs
worked and didn't warn you when one function was missing.
Thanks for coming up wi
The configure script checks for embedded perl functions broke
recently, but it was not apparent until Thomas A. noticed it. The
fact that no one noticed was probably due to the way the #ifdefs
worked and didn't warn you when one function was missing.
Thus, I have two patches (which I'll commit t
15 matches
Mail list logo
