From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Jul 18 12:08:06 1996
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA09930
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA09925
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA16258; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cmu-snmp 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:00:49 PDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.94.960718115424.10581B-100000@misery.sdf.com> 
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:07:50 -0700
Message-ID: <16256.837716870@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
>   Should cmu-snmp have been included in the xperimnt directory?
> 
>   I understand that cmu-snmp is no longer being developed.  The particular
> version included in 2.1.5-RELEASE appears to be exact same one included in
> 2.1?

Yes, it's the same one.  I had such an embarassingly low turn-out for
the experimental collection for 2.1.5 (maybe 3 entries) that I simply
merged the old one back in.  I wasn't aware that cmu-snmp was quite
so obsolete, but I also doubt that it's going to cause any significant
degree of harm, either.

					Jordan