Control: severity -1 wishlist Hi Jonas,
On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 at 20:56:50 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > lacme supports being remote-controlled from an external host _almost_ > out-of-the-box. However it supports being locally controlled out of the box :-) This is a deliberate tradeoff: I wrote lacme because I didn't want the account key to live next to the server key, but local account keys are still a valid use-case for lacme IMHO thanks to its multi-process architecture and privilege dropping. > If only [accountd] section header was commented out by default > (none of the items within that section are explicitly enabled anyway), The presence of the [accountd] section header indicates that lacme(1) should fork a local lacme-accountd process instead of connecting to a socket. I'm reluctant to replace that configuration check with checking whether the sockets exists and can be connected to, because that would mean a local lacme-accountd process would be forked when one forgets to forward the socket or start the remote process. > it is possible to use lacme with a remote accountd _without_ touching > any conffile. I see the appeal in that, will think of a better detection logic; Suggestions welcome :-) -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
