Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC 0/4] add netlink support for Linux: update

2018-04-11 Thread Antonio Quartulli
On 11/04/18 19:50, David Sommerseth wrote: > But in the end, I believe that currently it is probably better to have a > simple shell script doing the generation. > +1 Unless we have to create something quite complex (not the case here) that needs further extensions in the future (probably not

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC 0/4] add netlink support for Linux: update

2018-04-11 Thread David Sommerseth
On 11/04/18 09:43, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > >> This kicks into the discussion we had about supporting newer systemd features >> selectively... Shipping different static files for distributions and/or >> systemd versions duplicates the number of files. > > I am not into systemd, therefore I am

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC 0/4] add netlink support for Linux: update

2018-04-11 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:43:11PM +0800, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > However, what I imagine is that each distribution, when deciding what > library to use (sitnl vs iproute2), will also decide which of the > provided unit files to ship (if we have multiple precompiled files). This is how I

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC 0/4] add netlink support for Linux: update

2018-04-11 Thread Antonio Quartulli
Hi Christian, On 11/04/18 15:15, Christian Hesse wrote: > Antonio Quartulli on Fri, 2018/04/06 15:43: >> Two new files, namely networking_sitnl.c and networking_ip.c, provides >> two implementations for this API: one uses the new sitnl code (netlink) >> and one uses iproute2. >

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [RFC 0/4] add netlink support for Linux: update

2018-04-11 Thread Christian Hesse
Antonio Quartulli on Fri, 2018/04/06 15:43: > Two new files, namely networking_sitnl.c and networking_ip.c, provides > two implementations for this API: one uses the new sitnl code (netlink) > and one uses iproute2. This complicates the situation for my followup code: Running