rlm_exec wiki

[Doug Hardie]

On 15 June 2009, at 14:41, A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> (grin), but of course, if I want to write for the wiki, I'm going  
>> to have
>> to install the latest release, to be sure what I write is valid for  
>> the
>> most current context. Fortunately I have a test box for stuff like  
>> this.
>> :)
>
> ..but to mirror wat you've ben saying - why not support 1.x fully
> on the wiki - theres plenty of 1.x installs out there and 1.x users
> who are forced into such a situation - eg because their enforced
> distro/repository policy means no building from source....
>
> it would be much beter if there was a full delineation between
> 1.x and 2.x docs - the web is full of older resources that dont
> say what version their tweaks and info is good for.

Thats actually a good idea.  For example, during the initial  
introduction period for 2.x, there was nothing in the wiki about  
writing your own modules for 2.x.  The existing page was only for  
1.x.  It didn't know about the existence of 2.x because it didn't  
exist when the page was written.  As a result, anyone who was trying  
to use 2.x in the early days and wanted to write their own modules  
would have failed horribly.  The 1.x instructions were not at all  
appropriate for 2.x.  Since I only use FreeRadius for authenticating a  
small number of dial-in users, I didn't need to convert at all.  1.x  
would have been just fine for me probably longer than I will have dial- 
in users.  I only did the conversion to be able to rewrite the module  
page for 2.x.  Now both of them are there.  However, by having 2  
editions of each page, the top page would become enormous and  
difficult to handle.  Making separate sections for each version would  
make it a lot easier for people during these transitions.  There seems  
to be no end to Alan's imagination for new features.  I expect a  
version 3.x in the near future.