Currently vpnc-script is generated by the vpnc package and is used except from vpnc by the openconnect package.
The issue is that porting openconnect to epel7 or other branches will require porting vpnc, which is really orthogonal to the original port. For that vpnc-script should no longer be shipped by vpnc and should be a separate package allowing the port of openconnect to other branches without depending on the port of vpnc.
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? ;-)
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
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.