[Olsr-dev] olsrd debian update

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Speaking with my Debian packaging hat on, nothing needs to change in
olsrd.  Its easy to make this change in the packaging.  /usr/sbin/olsrd
should know where to find its default config file, so doing this via a
patch makes sense.

Speaking from my olsrd dev side, I think it makes sense to use
/etc/olsrd for all olsrd-related conf files like KeyFile, UUIDFile, etc.

.hc

On 06/06/2012 02:27 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> Can't we use /etc/init.d/olsrd script and /etc/default/olsrd to solve this?
> Until olsrv2, we can have a non-default config_file option, pointing to /etc/olsrd/olsrd.conf.
> 
> Teco
> 
> 
> Op 6 jun. 2012, om 18:02 heeft Hans-Christoph Steiner het volgende geschreven:
> 
>>
>> /etc/olsrd is already in the official Debian package and it working fine.
>>
>> I think either olsrd should adopt /etc/olsrd as its conf directory, or
>> this should be handled in the packaging with a patch.  I think it does
>> not make sense to maintain Debian-specific customizations in olsrd, i.e.
>> supporting different conf directories.  The build system is a bit scary
>> and contentious, so I think that the patch in Debian is much less work.
>>
>> .hc
>>
>> On 06/06/2012 11:52 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>> Hmm...
>>>
>>> okay, we have to think about how to deal with this. Because just
>>> moving the default configuration file might break a lot of things.
>>>
>>> Maybe looking if the olsrd subdirectory exists might be a good switch
>>> to decide where the default file should be.
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
>>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some plugins use files, like secure's keyfile, jsoninfo's uuidfile, etc.
>>>> Therefore there is no guarantee to have one conf file for olsrd.
>>>>
>>>> .hc
>>>>
>>>> On 06/06/2012 11:10 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>> Is there a reason why the olsrd config file again moved into /etc/olsrd/ ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Last thing I heard was that only packages with multiple config files
>>>>> need a subdirectory in Debian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch 100 is not really useful, if you fork into background you don't
>>>>> get any output anyways.
>>>>> Patch 110... hmm.
>>>>> Patch 111 should be integrated into our repository.
>>>>> Patch 260 too.
>>>>> Patch 270 too, but I am not sure the GTK gui works with ETX anyways. ^^
>>>>> Patch 280 could be integrated too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Henning
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Roland Stigge <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/06/2012 04:12 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>>>>>>> @Roland: if there are more "debian patches", I would like to talk with
>>>>>>> you about integrating them into the main branch, so we don't need them
>>>>>>> anymore in Debian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/olsrd/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you can find the patches that Debian is shipping with olsrd (currently
>>>>>> 0.6.2-2). Well possible that they can be integrated if they are not
>>>>>> forwarded already. Also, maybe some are obsolete already? You should be
>>>>>> able to find the reasons behind the patches in the Debian changelog.
>>>>>> Feel free to ask, otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also interested in keeping this Debian patchset as small as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Olsr-dev mailing list
>> (spam-protected)
>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>