Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Changeset 29355 - OpenVPN option enable and Luci
So maybe the question is: "is the change of the option required or should we stay at 'enable'?" Sven signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Changeset 29355 - OpenVPN option enable and Luci
The changelog stats: r29167 | nico | 2011-11-16 10:44:00 packages/openvpn: use new service functions, change 'enable' option to 'enabled' like most other services are using So the cause is more cosmetic / consistency of options. Am Mittwoch, 30. November 2011 schrieb Philip Prindeville: > I agree. > > Having the same option represented 2 different ways can break a lot of > stuff... and it's just confusing. > > Why exactly did it need to be changed? > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Changeset 29355 - OpenVPN option enable and Luci
Current LuCI covers both backfire and trunk. Applying your fix will break backfire, not applying your fix will break trunk. Merging current OpenVPN to Backfire will break existing configs, just accepting enable and enabled breaks nothing - easy choice. ~ Jow ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Changeset 29355 - OpenVPN option enable and Luci
I agree. Having the same option represented 2 different ways can break a lot of stuff... and it's just confusing. Why exactly did it need to be changed? Not sure I understand where this came from... On 11/29/11 4:17 PM, Sven Roederer wrote: > Hi, > > in r29355 a patch was made to accept the "option enable" and "option > enabled" in config-file. > Since r29167 the "option enable" was renamed to "option enabled". This > change caused luci-app-openvpn to not show up the correct state (see > ticket #10473). > > I think it's not the smartest way to have two options for the same > parameter. > > I've already written a small patch to fix the luci-issue, will test it now > and can submit tomorrow. > I don't know if there are still more interfaces to other packages > regarding the "option enable(d)", but may be we should cut the tail and do > a clean cut, the building the bridge (r29335). > > So I suggest to revert this patch and include the luci-app-openvpn-patch. > > > King regards > Sven ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
