[Openvpn-devel] Disable tun-ipv6 warning

Hey, Openvpn will show the following warning, if I enable tun-ipv6 in the local config and not remote or vice versa: WARNING: 'tun-ipv6' is present in remote config but missing in local config, remote='tun-ipv6' >From my understanding a ipv6 capable tun interface is always capable of ipv4 only.

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 09:23:04PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Huh?  You're the master of Autoconf, and I'm sure you will be able to > > produce a working PAM detection for those platforms that have it. > > Yes, and as such I tell you that automatic detection is something that > leads to

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi Alon, 2012/5/13 Alon Bar-Lev : > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Huh?  You're the master of Autoconf, and I'm sure you will be able to >> produce a working PAM detection for those platforms that have it. > > Yes, and as such

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

David, You misrepresent my opinion. I do NOT want a split, but will deal with one (as a packager) if it becomes necessary. I would much prefer there to never be a split, and for everything to be handled with configure args or ifdefs in the make file. - Eric F Crist On May 13, 2012,

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

What I had mentioned might be a good alternative in IRC was to have an openvpn package, and an openvpn-contrib. Two isn't hard, 17 or 500 is. This, still, didn't seem to be liked by Alon (not calling you out, per se, but stating fact). Not sure where we should go from here other than to stay

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories - Discussion Summary

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM, David Sommerseth wrote: > So, please!  Can we rather spend our precious time and energy to fix > *real* bugs?   I would like to spend time in completing the order of build/packaging,

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 04:10:54PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >> And always have pam dependency for this example? >> > >> > FreeBSD, NetBSD, all Linuxes and Solaris have PAM anyway. >> > >> > So make this "if

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 04:10:54PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> And always have pam dependency for this example? > > > > FreeBSD, NetBSD, all Linuxes and Solaris have PAM anyway. > > > > So make this "if pam libraries + headers are detected, install auth-pam, > > otherwise, not". > > We

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories - Discussion Summary

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/05/12 18:55, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Hello, > > Now, I also have the courage to ask one more question regarding > build > > We currently have: - auth-pam - defer - down-root - examples I'm just giving a summary here of the discussion, how

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 03:24:59PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> > If we ignore the examples, we really only have "auth-pam" and "down-root" >> > in the main distribution today, and those are useful in many cases

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:26:05PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> OK... now you are talking... so you say that like apache we need to >> integrate the plugins to main build system, this was the other >>

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hello Seth, Thank you this is interesting. I don't know pfSense... do you have the nation of plugin which is independent from the core? I mean pre-defined interface, which is backward compatible? I looked briefly on the source tree and did not find my way... A counter example of nagios is

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Chiming in here, Although pfSense is basically a giant tarbal, it has the benefit of being sure that all parts of it fit together. We also have installable packages and we frequently see issues with that. We are trying to solve some of them using PBI packages just so that each "package" always

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:00:32PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >> Can't we progress? >> > >> > Why is that progress? >> > >> > Change always has drawbacks.  If the plus sides outweighs the drawbacks, >> > change

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:00:32PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> Can't we progress? > > > > Why is that progress? > > > > Change always has drawbacks.  If the plus sides outweighs the drawbacks, > > change is good.  Change for change's sake, "just because you can change > > it", is not. >

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:30:37PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> An healthy community dealing with openvpn need to gather all resources >> that are acting at that niche. >> There is no reason why we should not

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:30:37PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > An healthy community dealing with openvpn need to gather all resources > that are acting at that niche. > There is no reason why we should not invite these maintainer to be > part of the openvpn project, on the contrary, we gain

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:10:48PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> And, if not split, they these two plugins should integrated within >> build system. > > This is certainly true. > >> The custom make files are not

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:10:48PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > And, if not split, they these two plugins should integrated within > build system. This is certainly true. > The custom make files are not doing any good, but I > still don't understand the difference between these two and

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Try to build Xorg or teTeX yourself, from packages, and learn from it. We are not xorg... [yet]. Anyway, I think the modular xorg and kde processes are a great success. It allowed them to delegate maintenance, and

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC] Split plugins into their own repositories

Hi, On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 05:22:52PM -0400, Eric Crist wrote: > My two cents on this is as follows: > > As a package maintainer, I think this is going to prove to be a lot of > work. It means there are more packages to maintain, over the one I > need to now. Yeah. From a sysadmin