Re: Bug#281154: RFA: ipsec-tools -- IPsec tools for Linux
On Sunday 28 November 2004 01:49, Matthew Grant wrote:
> Would you like to be the lead maintainer of the ipsec-tools and racoon
> packages? There are a few things I want to get done to support laptop
> use. The package is messy because of what I inherited, and the devel
> setup the ipsec-tools upstream coders have.
I follow the upstream ipsec-tools and racoon mailing lists and I am quite
familiar with the racoon code (at least racoon code till 0.3.3), so I guess
manage as a lead maintainer. This is a fairly complex package and also
security sensitive, I'd definitely welcome co-developers.
> The ipsec-tools sources needs to be repackaged as it is just mostly
> shell script calls from debian/rules, no debmake or debhelper stuff is
> used. This is a cause of a lot of work, and problems with various
> details with the package. This needs to be repackaged after sarge is
> out. This also puts updating to ipsec-tools 0.4 on hold as well.
Most of my packages use debhelper. I can do the repackaging. I'll work on it
and put it up for review. However, repackaging for 0.4 does not make sense
(see below).
> This is because the ipsec-tools coders use a wacky autoconf/libtool etc
> combination which does not compile on all Debian archs, which is hard to
> fix as you need to rerun the same autoconf/libtool (the Debian fixed
> ones) when you bring a new source tree in, and results in MASSIVE
> ..diff.gz files. This can't be done manually as these developer tools are
> quite cantankerous.
ipsec-tools 0.5 has a completely revamped the build system. It's a normal
automake/autoconf/libtoolized package now (for example there is no separate
configure.in in src/racoon directory). I'll give 0.4 a skip and take a
snapshot release of 0.5 for the repackaging.
Ganesan
Reply to: