Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:29:57 +0900 From: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: snmp port Message-ID: <7mznuzhf0a.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<kuriyama@FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7mznuzhf0a.wl>