On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 05:40:35PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
>
> > 1. I'll be shipping the compatibility script as /usr/bin/stunnel3 and
> > the main v4 binary as /usr/bin/stunnel4. I'll ship a /usr/bin/stunnel
> > symlink pointing at the wrapper for now, and eventually (after lenny,
> > for sure) change it to point at the v4 binary.
>
> You can use the alternatives system to create such a symlink for you.
> That automatically sets up a symlink, but the system administrator can
> also override it manually.
But aren't alternatives supposed to have compatible cli interfaces?
stunnel{3,4} aren't.
> > 4. stunnel v3 uses no configuration files, stunnel4 does and its
> > package has them installed on /etc/stunnel4 and similarly named files
> > and dirs.
> > [ ... ]
>
> I think you should mv /etc/stunnel4 /etc/stunnel in the new real
> package's preinst if /etc/stunnel does not exist yet.
And also ship them in the new real package, for people who didn't have
stunnel4 installed?
Also, some people might be relaying in the file's current location for
something. Should I put a symlink in their place?
Thanks,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature