On 9/8/05, James Yonan <j...@yonan.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Leonard Isham wrote: > > > On 9/8/05, James Yonan <j...@yonan.net> wrote: > > > > > > OpenVPN Addressing Topology > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > > > Merging Schedule > > > ---------------- > > > > > > With sufficient testing, this code will be a candidate for inclusion in > > > 2.1 or higher, and will be applicable to the 2.0.x branch via manual > > > merging. While this patch is not huge, it's deep enough that I don't plan > > > on merging it in 2.0.x anytime soon. > > > > > > > I know that I'm putting the cart in front of the horse, but... > > > > (BTW I couldn't find this on the web site either searchong for > > timeline and roadmap.) > > > > When will 2.1 development start/become publically available? This is > > a feature that I would love to impliment, but the more the current > > implimentation grows the harder it gets to change. > > Probably a few months at least, though some of the new features, such as > the topology directive can be used right now by patching to the 2.0.x > branch. > > The 2.x wishlist is already becoming quite large: > > http://openvpn.net/wiki/OpenVPN_2.x_wishlist > > While a lot of these items are small patches, the "big-ticket" items I'm > focussing on for 2.1 include: > > * topology directive > * groups (discussed previously on the list) > * support the ability for one OpenVPN daemon to handle > client connections on multiple TCP or UDP ports > simultaneously. > * improved IPv6 support > > I'd like to wait until we have these three in the bag before starting a > 2.1 beta series. >
Please bear with a network geek's rambling for a minute. 1. There is a windows install available. 2. the tar file can become an RPM with RPMBuild, correct? I'd have to deal with: 1. Disabling openvpn updates via yum. 2. This is a branch that will not be "merged" back in until 2.1 beta. 3. 2.0.3 or other updates will not include this unless I figure out how to "merge/diff" the patch in, and that may break it. I to go with it, but not being a developer fear that not being able to merge patches and even complie for windows... ...or am I incorrect in my understanding? -- Leonard Isham, CISSP Ostendo non ostento.
