From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Sep 2 21:30:32 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 5E37337B415 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from white.imgsrc.co.jp (ns.imgsrc.co.jp [210.226.20.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AFC43E75 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:30:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by white.imgsrc.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923D224D38 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:30:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from black.imgsrc.co.jp (black.imgsrc.co.jp [2001:218:422:2::130]) by white.imgsrc.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1435A24D02 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:30:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from black.imgsrc.co.jp (black.imgsrc.co.jp [2001:218:422:2::130]) by black.imgsrc.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93BA1E481D for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:57 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:29:57 +0900 Message-ID: <7mznuzhf0a.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> From: Jun Kuriyama To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: snmp port In-Reply-To: <20020831080500.GA519@hsc.fr> References: <20020830205359.GA452@hsc.fr> <200208302333.32966.mdouhan@fruitsalad.org> <1030747329.8123.17.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20020831080500.GA519@hsc.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.10 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.4 (Hosorogi) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2 (i386--freebsd) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS on ns.imgsrc.co.jp 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 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. -- Jun Kuriyama // IMG SRC, Inc. // FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message