What can be defined in sites-enable/a_site

[James Sumners]

On 2015-04-14 18:45:52 +0000, Alan DeKok said:

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:19 PM, James Sumners <james.sumners at clayton.edu> wrote:
>> That's not what I said. I said relying on them to be the documenation 
>> is ridiculous. There are MANY of them, they are not in any order, are 
>> not easily referenced, and it is very easy to get lost in them.
> 
>   Most directories have a README in them.  That *should* be clear.
> 
>   Documentation is a problem with most open source projects.  Do people 
> complain about it?  Yes, lots.  Do people contribute?  Rarely.

How am I supposed to do that when I don't know the information?

FYI, I did add some links to the expression documenation in wiki 
articles that mention xlat after reading Arran's reply earlier. Is it 
much? No, but they should've been there.

>   So... *do* something about it.  I get annoyed at complaints, because 
> most of them can be summarized as "YOU people need to do MORE WORK to 
> make ME happy."
> 
>   Well, no.
> 
>>> The radiusd.conf file says "the 'modules' section loads modules".  
>>> There is NOTHING which says that modules can be located elsewhere.  The 
>>> conclusion should be pretty simple.
>>> Unfortunately, some people want to be spoon fed.  You can't put 
>>> "listen" sections into module configurations.  You can't put virtual 
>>> servers into module configurations.  You can't put module 
>>> configurations in virtual servers.  You can't put module configurations 
>>> into client definitions.
>> 
>> Yes, it's unfortunate that the people who didn't develop the product 
>> expect the people who did to actually provide information on how to use 
>> it.
> 
>   i.e. you didn't bother reading radiusd.conf to see how the modules 
> work.  You didn't bother looking at the README in raddb/mods-available/.
> 
>   You DID search on google for things.  What a great idea!  Instead of 
> looking at the documentation SHIPPED WITH THE PRODUCT, you wander 
> around random third-party web sites.
> 
>> I didn't suggest you list the infinite. I suggested you list how the 
>> block is interpreted by the config parser. Is a block unique or do 
>> subsequent definitions override previous definitions? How difficult is 
>> that to understand?
> 
>   Like already exists in radiusd.conf?  Or raddb/mods-available/README? 
>  That you didn't read?

I'll play along...

Yep, `mods-available/README.rst` does say one word about if the modules 
config block can be declared more than once, or that it is unique, or 
even that it exists.

> 
>   How hard is THAT to understand?
> 
>   Honestly.... you're complaining that documentation doesn't exist.  
> When I point out that it does, your response is "LA LA LA But you guys 
> don't have documentation!"
> 
>   <sigh>  It's an up-hill battle fighting against people who don't want 
> to learn.
> 
>> Let's look at an example of the documentation in radiusd.conf:
>> 
>> # PROXY CONFIGURATION
> 
>   I'll note that you're changing the subject from *module* 
> documentation to *proxy* documentation.  There's only one reason to do 
> that.  I'm right, and you know it.

What more did you want me to write on the modules section in 
radiusd.conf? You wrote basically everything it says for the 
introduction in the post I replied to. Do you want me to just quote 
back your own examples?

> 
>> They're looking elsewhere because the documentation that ships with the 
>> server is not sufficient for someone who didn't write the software.
> 
>   I guess 10M people who configured the server are all wrong, and you're right.

I'd venture to guess that many are rolling along with out-of-the-box 
configurations and haven't bother to try to understand them at all. 
Most have probably hen pecked through and changed names and URLs to 
match their environment.

> 
>> You know what is meant in the docs you are referencing because you 
>> wrote them. You can fill in the gaps because you know what should be in 
>> those gaps. Telling the users to infer those with no prior knowledge of 
>> how the software works is akin to saying "why don't you know what I'm 
>> thinking?"
> 
>   Yeah, expecting people to read "radiusd.conf" and go from there is 
> asking too much.
> 
>   Pretty much every configuration file in the server explains what it's 
> for, how it works, and how it's used.  It's not my fault you don't read 
> them.
> 
>> Getting back to this subject of this thread... Phil Mayers actually 
>> answered my question. You tried to answer something I didn't even ask: 
>> "can clients be defined in a server section?" I knew the answer to 
>> that; that part is actually documented. But the example, literally 
>> `sites-available/example`, shows client blocks being defined _outside_ 
>> of the server block. Thus, it can be inferred, which is you suggestion 
>> every time, from that example that other configuration blocks can also 
>> be included in the site file. And since I want to modify the shipped 
>> configuration files as little as possible, I attempted to contain my 
>> modules config in the same way as I evidently could my clients -- in 
>> the same file as my server configuration.
>> 
>> In short you can't have it both ways: you can't ask us to piece stuff 
>> together from the stuff in the config files and then complain when we 
>> attempt to do so.
> 
>   No.  I'm pointing out that *your* complaints aren't substantiated by 
> the evidence.
> 
>   And that's why I started on the commercial documentation:  
> http://networkradius.com/doc/
> 
>   The formatting is a bit ugly, and there are pieces missing.  But 
> there's a LOT more documentation than on the Wiki.  It's cross-linked 
> and explanatory.  It describes (in hundreds of pages) how the server 
> works, how the "authorize" section works, etc.
> 
>   And before you start complaining that it's not perfect and 
> incomplete, I know.  It's being worked on.  What would you rather have, 
> better (but imperfect) documentation now, or perfect documentation 2 
> years from now?

http://networkradius.com/doc/3.0.7/ is looking pretty good. It should 
probably be linked in the top level README, but that seems to be for 
documenting changes from previous versions.

But, really, why would you have needed to start writing that site if 
what I'm saying isn't at least partially true?