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.
> 2. Ditto for manpages
The alternatives system can set up slave symlinks for the manpage that
mirror any changes of the /usr/bin/stunnel symlink.
> 3. I will turn the stunnel4 package into a dummy that just pulls the
> new stunnel.
How about creating a dummy stunnel package that pulls in stunnel4? Maybe
in the future there will be version 5 of stunnel, and you have to do
this all over again.
> 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?
I think you should mv /etc/stunnel4 /etc/stunnel in the new real
package's preinst if /etc/stunnel does not exist yet.
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
