[Nut-upsuser] Any word on when the ietf mib will be fixed for liebert?

[Maurice Volaski]

>  >> Please don't mistake warning messages with (fatal) errors. Starting 
>>>  with nut-2.4.0, these messages should only be displayed in debug 
>>>  mode, so I'm surprised you're seeing them in nut-2.4.1.
>>
>>  It doesn't seem this way from my reading of the source code:
>>
>>  upslogx(LOG_ERR, "[%s] %s: Error in packet: %s",
>
>This is a different message from what you reported before. These where 
>logged with 'nut_snmp_get' in them and these lines should now be gone
>(unless running in debug mode 2 or higher).

What message do you think I posted?

It was this one and it has the "Error in packet":

[upswallleft] nut_snmp_get: 1.3.6.1.2.1.33.1.4.4.1.4.0: Error in 
packet: (noSuchName) There is no such variable name in this MIB.


>  > From what I can tell, that's a regular log message of an error, not 
>>  a debug mode message, which would use either "upsdebugx" or "debug", 
>>  or a warning, which would use upslogx with "LOG_WARNING".
>
>Indeed, but this is in the lines you posted.

Where exactly do see any mention of "debug" or "warning"?

>  >> Upon startup, the snmp-ups driver will query the UPS for all the 
>>>  OID's the driver supports. The ones which are not supported by the 
>>>  UPS, will
>>
>>  In addition, the errors are continually output to syslog; they don't 
>>  just appear once and stop.
>
>It looks like this is a different problem than what you mentioned 
>before. Please be specific.

No, there was only one set of messages that prompted me to post and 
they were reported as errors and they are indeed being continuously 
output to the system log.

>No, previous versions didn't use tcp-wrappers. That's why I pointed 
>you to 'man 8 upsd.conf' which has a paragraph ACCESS CONTROL that 
>tells you that we use tcp-wrappers. It's true that we only do a lookup 
>for the IP, not the hostname. Although it is common to include both 
>hostname and IP in hosts.allow, we probably should make a note to that
>effect.

I saw that it was using tcp-wrappers, but I wouldn't have guessed 
localhost and 127.0.0.1 would be interpreted differently. For one 
thing, I have them as equivalent in /etc/hosts and they ordinarily 
are equivalent, so tcp-wrappers documentation could also be clarified 
:-)
-- 

Maurice Volaski, mvolaski at aecom.yu.edu
Computing Support, Rose F. Kennedy Center
Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University