Re: OpenVPN

[Tim Niemueller <tim niemueller de>]

Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> I've dug into the code a bit and come up with the attached patch, but it
> still doesn't seem to be working.  Watching the system bus with
> dbus-monitor shows the following DBus message being sent:

Hi Jeffrey.

First: Many thanks for the patch! It wasn't the right way to solve the
problem but I took the new dns-suffix feature and added it, I will
commit this to the repository soon. The login banner does not have to be
sent (also not empty) since what you changed in the private "in-plugin"
communication from the helper to the service, the same for the MSS.

You probably ran in the very same problem I ran into when investigating
this problem. You probably took a release-version of NetworkManager (I
still had 0.6.2 installed and didn't install the whole NetworkManager
from CVS, as I should have) but used the OpenVPN-plugin from CVS. On
March 29th a new field was added (the MSS) to the IP4Config message
(this is the uint32 0 that you see just before the two last strings
below). But this was after the 0.6.2 release. Because of this the
configuration data was invalid that was send to NM by the OpenVPN-plugin.

> ]uint32 0
> string ""
> string ""

So the solution is to use NetworkManager from CVS for now or to checkout
an older version (March 28th and older probably) of the OpenVPN-plugin.

This leads to a general question: Should we either package the whole
NetworkManager tree (including [working] VPN-plugins) for a release or
should we make the VPN-Plugin numbers match to the NM-release they work
with and release a new package for these plugins at the same time a NM
package is being released? This way this problem would probably not have
occured. If we keep the release numbers in sync it may be worth
re-thinking about having the VPN stuff as additional packages inside the
tree. They could as well be integrated with some autoconf --with-vpnc
--with-openvpn stuff. I'm not particular familiar with .deb, but I'd
expect they have the same ability to specify subpackages for one spec as
can be done for RPM, right? Would that be a problem in the case of
Fedora (NM is in Core, VPN plugins are in Extras).

Another thing that I noticed is that the CVS repo is still having 0.6.0
as the version number...
It may be worth thinking about naming the revisions in the repository so
that you see that it is being worked on (could be old kernel style,
0.6.2 is a release, 0.6.3 is a development cycle in CVS, 0.6.4 is a
release again etc.).

This didn't happen often and is unlikely to happen too often in the
future, but a little bit more structure here could help to catch the few
cases without much additional work.

	Tim

-- 
    Tim Niemueller <tim niemueller de>      www.niemueller.de
=================================================================
 Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein)