On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 01:03:09PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:30:50PM -0400, micah wrote:
> > Package: stunnel4
> > Version: 3:5.32-1
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It would be nice if stunnel4 had systemd integration...
[snip example
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:03:09 +0300 Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for the provided sample file!
> Also, apologies for not replying sooner.
>
> Actually, I've been thinking about providing a native systemd unit /
> service file for quite some time now, and
For quite some time I've had a laptop, running stretch, with stunnel4
installed, with a single /etc/stunnel/foo.conf file, and after network
changes (switch WiFi network, fix broken DNS, etc.), I've found that
'systemctl restart stunnel4.service' doesn't actually restart the
stunnel4 process, and
Hi Guys,
I, as the upstream maintainer, strongly support option 1, that is to
drop supporting multiple instances of stunnel. My rationale is:
1. It breaks systemd integration (verbosely discussed in this thread).
2. It is no longer useful after the "include" configuration file option
was
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:30:50PM -0400, micah wrote:
> Package: stunnel4
> Version: 3:5.32-1
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> It would be nice if stunnel4 had systemd integration, perhaps a unit file
> such as the following could be used?
>
> [Unit]
> Description=Universal SSL
Package: stunnel4
Version: 3:5.32-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
It would be nice if stunnel4 had systemd integration, perhaps a unit file such
as the following could be used?
[Unit]
Description=Universal SSL tunnel for network daemons
After=network.target
After=syslog.target
[Install]
6 matches
Mail list logo
