Bug 1128147

Any update on that issue? Note, that I am offering to do that work; if I don't receive a reply I will start the unresponsive maintainer process.

If I understand correctly, your suggestion is to create a separate package (not only sub-package) just for the vpnc-script?

So the next steps would be:
- submit a new package request for Fedora

once that's approved:
- remove the vpnc-script from vpnc
- deprecate / obsolete vpnc-script sub-package (but make sure, that all upgrade-paths work properly)

Are you going to submit the new package? ;-)

Hello Christian,
 Indeed that's the plan; I needed you though to remove vpnc-script from vpnc once the new package is in place. I'm starting the process then.

If I understood the plan correctly, the next step is to remove vpnc-script from the vpnc package now that the new package got approved. I'm a bit puzzled because this bug is closed but I still see the subpackage in Fedora git.

(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #4)
> If I understood the plan correctly, the next step is to remove vpnc-script
> from the vpnc package now that the new package got approved. I'm a bit
> puzzled because this bug is closed but I still see the subpackage in Fedora
> git.

That seems right, I didn't notice that vpnc-script remains in vpnc's master. Reopening.

What needs to be done?
Remove vpnc-script from vpnc's master branch.

+ ensuring the upgrade path works (though "vpnc-script-20140805.1.df5808b" should replace "vpnc-script-0.5.3-23")

@Christian: Please also check my application for vpnc co-maintainership.

(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #6)
> + ensuring the upgrade path works (though "vpnc-script-20140805.1.df5808b"
> should replace "vpnc-script-0.5.3-23")

That is not needed. 20140805.1.df5808b > 0.5.3-23 according to rpmdev-vercmp.

Created attachment 954392 [details]
proposed spec.patch for rawhide

I attached my proposed changes so Christian can review it first. I tested the change by applying this patch to F20 (with some trivial conflict resolution) and I could see any difference when connecting to my VPN (so I guess that means it's working ;-).

@chkr: This patch is meant to be applied after the patch for bug 1016215.

@nmav: Currently the vpnc-package has only a rawhide branch. Do you intend to create a branch for f21?

(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #8)

> @chkr: This patch is meant to be applied after the patch for bug 1016215.
> 
> @nmav: Currently the vpnc-package has only a rawhide branch. Do you intend
> to create a branch for f21?

I'd suggest to make not change in F21 as it is already out, and finalize the transition in F22.

(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #9)
> I'd suggest to make not change in F21 as it is already out, and finalize the
> transition in F22.

That's what I assumed as well but I wanted to be sure :-)

I've reviewed the patch: besides the %changelog section (wrong NVR) it is OK.

Fixed in current vpnc git. I suspect this will cause a bit of unexpected behavior in a lot of fedora tools which assume that a rpm name always belongs to a single package (e.g. https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/...) but that's another story.

Nikos: I'll cc you on a few of vpnc-script related bug reports (currently filed for vpnc but sometimes they actually refer to vpnc-script) over the next week or so. Hope that's ok.