mtmiller at ieee
Apr 15, 2012, 8:19 AM
Post #9 of 14
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:46:13AM +0200, Florian Schlichting wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:22:17PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Your patch hard-codes the directory /etc/vpnc for the helper scripts ???
> > would it be better to use `dirname $0` for that, to allow relocation?
> well, as things are now that would be functionally equivalent, so no
> objection from my side (NB that patch dates back to the times when
> Eduard Bloch was Debian maintainer of vpnc, so if anyone wants to
> attribute authorship, that would be to him rather than to me).
> But I'm starting to think about how things would be with a separate
> vpnc-scripts package. Wouldn't those scripts be located somewhere under
> /usr/lib/vpnc-scripts/ then, and only the files meant to be edited by
> the user (default.conf, vpnc-script-post-connect-action, etc) remain in
Hi, jumping in the middle here... I wasn't on the start of this thread,
I haven't seen your patches yet, but it sounds very analogous to
1) dhclient the executable, which runs
2) dhclient-script the helper script, which sources
3) /etc/dhclient-hook* scripts or whatever they are called
For Debian, if we're going to do a vpnc-scripts package, I would vote
for the script living under /usr/share/vpnc-scripts/ and these user hook
scripts would go under /etc/vpnc-scripts/. Debian policy really wants
things that don't need to be edited under /usr. So I don't think
dirname $0 is flexible enough to meet every packaging system's needs.
And as for Debian openconnect, this issue is still an open bug. I like
the vpnc-scripts shared dependency solution.
vpnc-devel mailing list
vpnc-devel [at] unix-ag