Peter, thanks for replying and for maintaining stunnel.
> I do agree that not having a 'status' init script command is, to put it
> mildly, a major nuisance, and I thank you for your work on it!
Yeah, I just finally upgraded my last couple of hold-outs to wheezy and
it took two tries to build a
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 01:17:37PM -0700, Chris Haumesser wrote:
> On 06/08/2014 11:44 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > IMHO the open issue against policy doesn't make this bug report
> > against stunnel4 a serious one. Mraw, KiBi.
>
> I disagree. Section 9.3 of the Policy Manual is quite obviously
On 06/08/2014 11:44 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> IMHO the open issue against policy doesn't make this bug report
> against stunnel4 a serious one. Mraw, KiBi.
I disagree. Section 9.3 of the Policy Manual is quite obviously
outdated. It says practically nothing about LSB, failing to mention even
t
ch (2014-06-08):
> The 'status' target is also required by LSB, and Debian uses LSB init
> scripts. There is an open issue to modify the Policy Manual to
> require 'status' target support. See:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=291148
Package: stunnel4
Version: 3:4.53-1.1
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream patch
Justification: Policy 9.3
The stunnel4 init script is missing 'status' support. This makes it impossible
to
programatically tell whether stunnel4 is properly running. This makes stunnel4
unusable in high-availability en
5 matches
Mail list logo
