[Openvpn-devel] Google Summer of Code

Hello, I discussed this earlier with @mattock, however, there are more ideas :) 1) what do you think of participating GSoC in general ? 2) there are at least 2 ideas which I wished to be done with GSoC 2a) "import ovpn from URL for network-manager-openvpn" (actually, it is perfect way to

Re: [Openvpn-devel] ngx_stream_ssl_preread_module does not seem to extract the server_name when connecting with openconnect

2016-12-15 23:50 GMT+07:00 Thomas Glanzmann : > Hello Roman, > > > You can try logging $ssl_preread_server_name in access_log. > > thank you. It seems that nginx is not able to extract the server_name > from openconnect correctly: > > 2a01:598:8181:37ef:95e1:682:4c98:449e -

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH] Build with a few -Werror= flags if the compiler supports them

Hi, On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 04:26:46PM +0500, ?? wrote: > > The world is bigger than Linux. > > There should be high level autoconf magic, which will add option if chosen > compiler supports it. That wasn't my point. Some systems are making it hard to get Linux-developed

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH] Build with a few -Werror= flags if the compiler supports them

17 дек. 2016 г. 15:07 пользователь "Gert Doering" написал: Hi, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Julien Muchembled wrote: > BTW, instead of failing on these 3 specific warnings, we could go the opposite way, since -Wall is quite silent. I suggest: > > -Wall

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH] Build with a few -Werror= flags if the compiler supports them

Hi, On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 11:16:10AM +0100, Steffan Karger wrote: > > NAK to "-Wall -Werror", unless you've tested that this does not break > > compilation on any of the supported platforms. > > Sure, but I think we should help out with that. Such as, do a test > build on the supported

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH] Build with a few -Werror= flags if the compiler supports them

On 17 December 2016 at 11:05, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Julien Muchembled wrote: >> BTW, instead of failing on these 3 specific warnings, we could go the >> opposite way, since -Wall is quite silent. I suggest: >> >> -Wall -Wno-unused