We had an off list discussion ... On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 08:23, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > Time to paint a boat shed. These are my suggestions: > > > > base: it replaces "all" > > crypt: anything that might accidentally leak crypto material and, > > typically, is TMI > > more: stuff that normally isn't helpful > > private: crypto compliance stuff that really should be switched to a log > > flag > > > > I don't think there should be "all" (except, perhaps short term have > > it map onto base). > > > > As for implementation, I was thinking of my usual quick and nasty > > approach of defining most of the old flags as DBG_BASE - what matters > > here is the UI. Then, as things switch to using dbg() they will go > > away. > > I am okay with this, but would like to hear from others before we move > forward.
Paul noticed 'more' is no good - 'more' debug information must be better, right? So instead the very short TMI. _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
