Hello Luis,
Am 2007-05-09 14:05:57, schrieb Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz:
> 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 say "stunnel" is unsuported since years, then maybe it is time
to force $USER to switch to stunnel4. (This is like exim v3)
> 2. Ditto for manpages
>
> 3. I will turn the stunnel4 package into a dummy that just pulls the
> new stunnel.
Why?
Package: stunnel
Provides: stunnel4
should be enough.
> 4. stunnel v3 uses no configuration files, stunnel4 does and its
> package has them installed on /etc/stunnel4 and similarly named files
> and dirs. Since the surviving package is to be called stunnel, I think
> it would be correct for its config files to have no '4' suffix on
> their names. Nevertheles, I'd like stunnel4 users to have a painles
> migration, which means somehow grabbing their stunnel4 files and
> putting them in the new places. Is that a good idea? Should such
> migration logic be put in the dummy transitional package? Or maybe I
> should just live with funnily-named conf files for stunnel?
Why not ask Upstream for that change?
I have done this before with another package (non-free and not in
Debian), but after making the changes I have send it to upstream
with a script, which rename the old "package<version>.conf" to
"package.conf" for those wose upgrade.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment:
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature