FreeBSD & Nagios with statusmap.cgi | How??

[Bas van der Veen]

You're right.

I suppose there are too much *NIX and *BSD types around, and the last thing I expect is the Nagios developers being too busy keeping track of all used OSes instead of improving Nagios.

Let's just say I was surprised I couldn't find (almost) anything about Nagios on FreeBSD. I thought FreeBSD was a commonly used OS, to my surprise there aren't much Nagios fans using it.

If you'd like me to provide you with some info about the FreeBSD port, let me know... I'll see what I can do (please keep in mind that I have nothing to do with the ported install and that I mostly use RedHat Linux (up till now).

Regards,

Bas 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl DeBisschop [mailto:karl at debisschop.net]
Sent: donderdag 27 februari 2003 13:29
To: Bas van der Veen
Cc: nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Nagios-users] FreeBSD & Nagios with statusmap.cgi | How??


On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 07:12, Bas van der Veen wrote:
> Karl,
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that the developers of Nagios should make the *total* faq for running Nagios on FreeBSD.


> Just a little note stating that FreeBSD users can use the ported version (without any warranty about it functioning or not) would have been nice. I had Nagios up and running in 3 hours on a linux box (fully working that is). FreeBSD takes 2 days now and it ain't finished yet :-( (FreeBSD = company policy).

My point is that I don't know except through you that nagios is in ports
(though apparently some on the list do). I still don't know if the
plugins are in ports. And I don't really know how to find out.

Then there the other BSD's, sunfreeware, debian, mandrake, gentoo,
caldra, and a variety of other porting/packaging facilites. Would you
have us track all those too?

IMHO, the maintainers should feel free to come forward and ask for
posting, and try to help keep those FAQ items up to date. As a general
proposition, it is not in our scope, unless we add advocacy to our
scope.

Do you see my point? Maybe I'm being thick, but I think it's a point
worth at least considering.

--
Karl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl DeBisschop [mailto:karl at debisschop.net]

> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 05:52, Bas van der Veen wrote:
> > Ok, looks like nagios is a ported application for FreeBSD.
> > 
> > I am now checking whether this install works :-)
> > 
> > Would have been nice if I could have found this in the FAQ's or the FM though...
> 
> I'm not sure I agree. We have nothing to do with the port. It can come
> or go, the version in ports can change, the maintainer could forsake the
> material world and run off the a convent at the north pole and we'd know
> nothing about it. So why shoould we be responsible for making that FAQ.
> Shouldn't the ports maintainer make that information readily available,
> rather than us?
> 
> (Not trying to be sarcastic -- nor do I rule the idea out. But it does
> seem like our standing in FreeBSD ports is simply not best placed in our
> FAQ, or if there is a placement, it should be quite general.)
> 
> Or the port maintainer should be more communicative about it to us so we
> can know the above things. (Maybe s/he has been and I've missed it, but
> I know I seldom hear a peep from most maintainers, Ben Bell when he diid
> debian packaging was the big exception).




******************************************************************
This footnote also confirms that this email message has 
been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of 
computer viruses.
******************************************************************
http://www.kahuna.nl



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null