Charles Gregory wrote:
Five or six huh? Quote them. Paraphrase them. And don't just lamely say "check the archives" because I did that when I double-checked that you 'had no idea'. I've been up and down this thread a few times now. And there is NO posting with clear code like the one I posted in my 'solved' post.... Just pedantic demands I upgrade, and vague "look at the docs".
1) Read my messages. The text you *deleted* pointed you to documentation for the "users" file, and the SQL module. 2) See the examples in the "users" file. It contains MANY examples of setting values for attributes. The *hope* is that readers can put 2+2 together. i.e. the "exec" modules does NOT contain documentation about how to configure all of the other modules 3) buy support. 4) upgrade to 2.x. 5) install 1.0.x from *source* and look at the examples you were told to look at.
OH, and as a side note, I just double-checked the 'users' file and the users man page, and NEITHER of them contain the word 'exec' ANYWHERE in any context or usage. So WHERE exactly was I supposed to find the instructions to do what I wanted to do?
The "exec" module. Did you *really* think that there was an attributed called "Attribute-Name", as suggested in the comments for the exec module? Really? You are obviously capable of putting 2+1 together, because you eventually put "Session-Timeout = `%{exec:...}` in the post-auth section. So you *did* understand that the example in the "exec" module could apply to other attributes. But you *didn't* put 2+2 together, and edit the *users* file examples containing Session-Timeout to use the same `%{exec:..` text. I've made it as clear as possible in 1.0. If you don't like the documentation there, upgrade to 2.x . If you don't want to upgrade to 2.x, don't blame *me* for the documentation being bad. You're the one whose chose to *not* read the documentation I wrote.
Yes, yes, version 2.x.... But given my
... self-imposed ...
constraints, 'read the docs' was utterly useless.
Well.. I can't help that.
I await your QUOTE of '5 or 6' options. I'll presume one of them was to upgrade to 2.x so you can skip that one....
No. It's an option. The fact that *you* rejected it is *your* problem.
Is a result, I have *no* idea what you were trying to do.
Oh, so now it's a word game. You knew what I was trying to do but confused by the manner in which I was trying to do it?
I didn't know if you *really* wanted to solve the problem, or if you just wanted to find reasons to vent about how bad the software was. Given the sheer level of energy you've put into *not* following suggestions, I'd say the answer to that is pretty clear.
THEY WEREN'T. That's the whole point. I was asking for MORE. Examples. A working script and config that did what I wanted. If someone asked this question now, I would post my half dozen lines from my config, saying, this is one way to do it and be DONE.
Yet when you *finally* downloaded the source, you found the working script that you were told to use. But it took *fighting* you before you were willing to take that step. See? Given the choice between following instructions and then solving the problem, *or* fighting, your first reaction was to fight, and to disagree with the people on this list. That seems to be clear demonstration of your goals.
Really, why weren't the docs in the radiusd.conf or users documentation? You say you wrote this stuff. How could you leave something out (and then act like it was always there and I failed to read it)?
You got far enough to put the *correct* configuration into the *wrong* file. No documentation or example said that configuration would work. Many other documentation files and examples said something else would work. And despite your complaints, you have carefully *not* responded to most of my points disproving most of your complaints. You selectively read my messages, just like you selectively read the documentation. Alan DeKok.