[Swan] an xauth logging message

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

Paul sees some surprising logging.  So I'm staring at the code.  In 
particular (shifted left for readability):

	    DBG(DBG_CONTROLMORE , DBG_log("this is a xauthserver=%s "
		"xauthclient=%s modecfgserver=%s "
		"modecfgclient=%s in sate %s. "
		"reply with UNSUPPORTED_EXCHANGE_TYPE"
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.xauth_server ? "yes" : "no"
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.xauth_client ? "yes" : "no"
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.modecfg_server ? "yes" : "no"
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.modecfg_client  ? "yes" : "no"
		, enum_name(&state_names, st->st_state)
		));

Spelling: "sate" =>"state".

Are xauth_server and xauth_client mutually exclusive?
Are modecfg_server and modecfg_client mutually exclusive?
If so, perhaps a PASSERT and a simpler message is in order.

Assuming all are independent, I think that this generates a simpler
message:

	    DBG(DBG_CONTROLMORE , DBG_log("this is a%s%s%s%s in state %s. "
		"Reply with UNSUPPORTED_EXCHANGE_TYPE"
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.xauth_server ? " xauthserver" : ""
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.xauth_client ? " xauthclient" : ""
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.modecfg_server ? " modecfgserver" : ""
		, st->st_connection->spd.this.modecfg_client  ? " modecfgclient" : ""
		, enum_name(&state_names, st->st_state)
		));

Admittedly, this looks funny if none of the fields is true, but I
would guess this never happens.  Am I wrong?