[Pkg-swan-devel] [strongswan] branch split-plugins created (now 82c45c9)

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 07:21:17PM +0000, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
> 
> corsac pushed a change to branch split-plugins
> in repository strongswan.
> 
>         at  82c45c9   split libstrongswan package
> 
> This branch includes the following new commits:
> 
>        new  c4f8572   split charon-cmd to a standalone package.
>        new  82c45c9   split libstrongswan package
> 
> The 2 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
> repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
> listed as "adds" were already present in the repository and have only
> been added to this reference.
> 
So, I've tried to come with a plan to split plugins to alternate
packages.

The first commit is a simple one to move the charon-cmd client to a
standalone package.

The second one is a bit more hairy, and is the real split.

The plugins are now in following packages:

- - - libstrongswan: main/default plugins, as defined by the strongSwan
  project
- - - libstrongswan-standard-plugins: non default but useful plugins (agent,
  gcm and openssl)
- - - libstrongswan-extra-plugins: more scarcely used plugins
- - - libcharon-extra-plugins: more scarecely used plugins for the charon
  daemon

I did some quick tests on my setup and it mostly seems to work (I need
libstrongswan-standard-plugins due to me forcing gcm and ECC, but it
works fine with AES-128-CBC using just strongswan-ike and
libstrongswan).

Now, I'd like to push this even further, with:

- - - moving libhydra and libcharon to a libcharon package
- - - rename strongswan-ike to strongswan-charon
- - - move /usr/bin/pki to strongswan-pki
- - - maybe split other binaries/tools to standalone package

(I'm not too sure what to do with strongswan-starter).

Could you please have a look at the above branch and maybe test stuff
there?

I'm not completely closed to modifications to the plugins distribution,
but I'm pretty sure I don't want to make one binary package per plugin,
that's just too unmaintainable.

Regards,
- - -- 
Yves-Alexis Perez
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS7p2RAAoJEG3bU/KmdcClye8H/3TKf/6YOo9b833UW+wUxAE/
TpCZJC4ngrDF9m/IPekgiLG/4QSPoxnFBacclDt2KAmOfHyD7szw5DHbxaAjkzMS
3PQqZowR98q2PrgkbQWnn0vSq3LTAJtpIc4h4YQpB7LOjmMIS82W9Bfb1k/eKJGJ
SKfcjotPKtZfOng/+IvVwbdYHK27YDb7/0ZHe0YKTpgPtrm16ANL7hfXru7yGPvY
Jfr6cdNPUAMO8dlETIHxX6rwISRvH+ddQrioPN4E0yr26pkaY0uChxZXAUI5wqF8
u140N0gjCvl7LavAyH5PTk2V5wTPsRja87T+RXqZ0OAEWAkXRasqW6qxkKscXGs=
=LbgT
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS7qJPAAoJEG3bU/KmdcCl41kIAJnSKmbrfrpmQIf4pQn25rX+
t4JoySX3JgmWpTp6BgTiJdxgU/GyDaK9Vopq8K+exT6+nzoVxFuGI56EqHCYfhWT
NZvBVWu6hnXNXfHE8YYwyakf2Zio3jEfUolFkiC9craqlV1rzkGSQPBmKJ4xHhab
bToQPvxXJjCrVJEvJiIPzfiV9p7/Yq8klqmjC0EgCn4ixNenchilB38D/PtFSbjr
GqYyrcIRaEKHZcwJ2fIN4K/ziFVIN4r7TFwb1i7UWX7IJz0nUJQeQcKkkSObVGSI
Krc7YFuzvAzAdndgF7MibWddrrSsbKp9btN6fe+awH7hUqDsNhRlzy0jnNnCGw0=
=gUrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----