[Nagiosplug-devel] RE: nagiosplug- check_snmp

[Subhendu Ghosh]

No - the host:port notation works as an undocumented feature in 4.x :)

-sg

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Michael Haro wrote:

> did my snmp port fix for 5.x break 4.x?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subhendu Ghosh [mailto:sghosh at sghosh.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:14 PM
> To: Michael Haro
> Cc: 'Karl DeBisschop'; 'NagiosPlug Devel'
> Subject: RE: nagiosplug- check_snmp
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - warning state when it shouldn't be. - dropping the " }else{ "
> clause back in seems to fix it.
> 
> check_snmp - should be supporting both 4.x and 5.x  - most of my testing
> is 4.x
> 
> I'll pop the "else" clause back in tonight - and perhaps Jim can create
> another solaris tarball.
> 
> -sg
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Michael Haro wrote:
> 
> > What are you waiting on me for?  I haven't had time to fully test the
> > check_snmp plugin this week yet :-/
> >
> > Also, is check_snmp supposed to support both net-snmp 4.x and 5.x or just
> > 5.x?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Subhendu Ghosh writes:
> >
> > > Thanks Michael.
> > >
> > > Looks like another change between v4.x and 5.x
> > > (Also might look into supporting some IPv6 and TCP options in 5x)
> > >
> > > As a side note: there was a change in r1.8 (line 326) where the "}else{"
> > > clause was dropped.
> > >
> > > Without out it, I can't seem to get my warning/critical range checking
> to
> > > work.  check_num() properly sets iresult but the lack of the "else"
> clause
> > > overrides it.
> > >
> > > I have a patch - but wanted to confirm before applying it.
> > >
> > > -subhendu
> >
> > Is it possibly a typo on my part?
> >
> > I don't see a reply from Michael yet, but I do notice that check_snmp in
> the
> > latest snapshot seems to be in warning state when it shiould not be (at
> > least for my deployment). Is that the same issue?
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 

--