From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Sep 3 1:20:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3B237B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from itesec.hsc.fr (itesec.hsc.fr [192.70.106.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCC343E72 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:20:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yb@sainte-barbe.org) Received: from taz.hsc.fr (ogoun.hsc.fr [192.70.106.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "taz.hsc.fr", Issuer "HSC CA" (verified OK)) by itesec.hsc.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8392C20F89 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by taz.hsc.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C944654A; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:33 +0200 From: Yann Berthier To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: snmp port Message-ID: <20020903075233.GR436@hsc.fr> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20020830205359.GA452@hsc.fr> <200208302333.32966.mdouhan@fruitsalad.org> <1030747329.8123.17.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20020831080500.GA519@hsc.fr> <7mznuzhf0a.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7mznuzhf0a.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> X-Organization: Herve Schauer Consultants X-Web: http://www.hsc.fr/ X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 03 Sep 2002, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > At Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:07:32 +0000 (UTC), > Yann Berthier wrote: > > Indeed, I am in the same situation, I _do_ use snmpd on a number of > > boxes. The point is, I'm not sure the average user who want to play > > with snmpwalk is conscious that indeed he will have a listening snmpd > > on next reboot. The policy for the installation of the base system is > > to be pretty closed by default, I see no reasons to have ports > > differing on that matter. > > > > > I second changing the startup script to snmpd.sh.sample, and let users > > > decide if they want to enable it. > > > > Thanks for your input, what does the port maintainer think ? > > I'm planning to modify snmpd.sh to read /etc/rc.conf. If you want to > use snmpd, you will need to set net_snmpd_enable="YES" in > /etc/rc.conf. Ok this is another possibility. Is there precedences of rc.conf being used to control a port, though ? Anyway, thanks, - yann -- Yann.Berthier@hsc.fr -*- HSC -*- http://www.hsc.fr/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message