From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 25 17:12:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A14137B401 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from Awfulhak.org (gw.Awfulhak.org [217.204.245.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6996643FAF for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:12:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from mail.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@hak.Awfulhak.org [IPv6:2001:6f8:602:1::12]) by Awfulhak.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2Q1CQTj015635; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:12:27 GMT (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:12:26 +0000 From: Brian Somers To: Maksim Yevmenkin Message-Id: <20030326011226.051dbae9.brian@Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: <3E3EF111.5050401@exodus.net> References: <45258A4365C6B24A9832BFE224837D552B1283@sjdcex01.int.exodus.net> <3E3ED4DF.7090904@exodus.net> <3E3EDE11.192ABC3F@mindspring.com> <3E3EF111.5050401@exodus.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.5claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-26.1 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: brian@FreeBSD.ORG cc: doconnor@gsoft.com.au cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG cc: imp@bsdimp.com cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [PATCH2] PPP in -direct mode does not execute any chat scripts X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD user questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:12:42 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:12:42 -0000 Hi, Yes, this looks fine, although I think this shows that the -direct description is wrong. Perhaps this is more appropriate: -direct This is used for communicating over an already established connection, usually when receiving incoming connections accepted by getty(8). ppp ignores the ``set device'' line and uses descriptor 0 as the link. ppp will ignore any configured chat scripts unless the ``force-scripts'' option has been enabled. If callback.... Do you agree with this description ? If so, I'll go ahead and commit the changes. Just to be picky, I'll re-sort the OPT_ variables too :*P And thanks for the patches. On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:45:37 -0800, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > Dear Brian and Hackers, > > Please find updated proposed version of the patch. As suggested by > Warner option has been renamed to 'force-sripts' and now works for > both 'direct' and 'dedicated' modes. Also as suggested by Terry the > man page has been updated to document side effect of 'direct'. > > -direct > This is used for receiving incoming connections. ppp ignores the > ``set device'' line and uses descriptor 0 as the link. ppp will > never use any configured chat scripts unless ``force-scripts'' > option has been enabled. > > If callback is configured, ppp will use the ``set device'' infor- > mation when dialing back. > > -dedicated > This option is designed for machines connected with a dedicated > wire. ppp will always keep the device open and will never use > any configured chat scripts unless ``force-scripts'' option has > been enabled. > > force-scripts > Default: Disabled. Forces execution of the configured chat > scripts in direct and dedicated modes. > > >>Please find attached patch that adds new option to the PPP. > >> > >>run-scripts-in-direct-mode > >> Default: Disabled. This allows to run chat scripts in > >> direct mode. > >> > >>did i miss anything? objections? comments? reviews? > > > > > > First comment: run it past Brian Somers ; it's > > his baby, and he's the active maintainer. > > I have sent him e-mail. > > > Rest of comments: > > > > Actually, why doesn't "-direct" allow a chat script by default? > > The man page doesn't document that as a side-effect of "-direct", > > only of "-dedicated", but it's been there since the import. > > > > Should this really be a "negotiate" section command, rather than > > just a command or a "set" command? > > > > Also, there are only two other commands even have a "-" in them, > > and both of them only have one (just seems a little long, compared > > to, say, "rsid" or "direct-with-script", or even "force-script"). > > > > Personal preference: don't make it conditional on "-direct", let > > it also work with "-dedicated", and call it "force-script" or > > something, instead. > > done > > > The man page should be updated -- including the undocumented > > side-effect of "-direct" disabling scripts). > > done > > thanks > max > -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !