FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Sergej Pupykin
 
Default ?

Dave,

we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24
votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make
things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.

I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not
break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.

At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:59:40 -0400,
Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
>
> Sergej,
>
> We spent a week rebuilding packages to get tcp_wrappers out of [core]
> and out of the repos. Now I see that you've moved it back into
> [community]. What the hell? Were you going to start recompiling packages
> against tcp_wrappers and adding it back as a dep? Not acceptable. We all
> made this decision as a team, so I'm not sure why you're trying to fight
> us.
>
> I'm db-remove'ing this (again) and putting it back where it belongs.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
 
Old 09-01-2011, 03:17 PM
Evangelos Foutras
 
Default ?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Sergej Pupykin <ml@sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
> we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24
> votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make
> things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.

I'm sure that whoever wants to use tcp_wrappers, and therefore is
willing to recompile all the services that support it on every update,
won't mind building one more package.

I'd say we keep it out of the binary repos.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 04:52 PM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default ?

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:05:01PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24
> votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make
> things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
>
> I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not
> break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.

There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they
have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost
400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.

We decided to remove tcp_wrappers. -1 to moving it back to [community].
 
Old 09-01-2011, 04:56 PM
Ionut Biru
 
Default ?

On 09/01/2011 07:52 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:05:01PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:


Dave,

we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24
votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make
things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.

I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not
break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.


There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they
have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost
400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.



dude wtf, don't give him ideas!


We decided to remove tcp_wrappers. -1 to moving it back to [community].



--
IonuČ›
 
Old 09-01-2011, 08:48 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default ?

On 1 September 2011 17:05, Sergej Pupykin <ml@sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24
> votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make
> things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
>
> I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not
> break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.
And tomorrow we'll get some Feature Request with the title "Build X
with tcp_wrappers support" - Just add it to depends array.

-1. Bring it to AUR!

--
Andrea
 
Old 09-01-2011, 09:48 PM
Sergej Pupykin
 
Default ?

On 02.09.2011 00:48, Andrea Scarpino wrote:

And tomorrow we'll get some Feature Request with the title "Build X
with tcp_wrappers support" - Just add it to depends array.


Sure.

I moved it to community with 24 votes.
Return it back with resetting vote counter to zero.
Now it has 55 votes.

Flashmob?
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:56 AM
Sergej Pupykin
 
Default ?

At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:52:42 +0200,
Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they
> have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost
> 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.

Btw, cairo-xcb is _broken_. I did not search for tcp_wrappers issues
globally, but I did not understand from
http://www.archlinux.org/news/dropping-tcp_wrappers-support/
what is exact issue with tcp_wrappers.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 09:22 AM
Laurent Carlier
 
Default ?

Le Vendredi 2 Septembre 2011 12:56:28, Sergej Pupykin a écrit :
> At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:52:42 +0200,
>
> Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> > There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they
> > have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost
> > 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.
>
> Btw, cairo-xcb is _broken_. I did not search for tcp_wrappers issues
> globally, but I did not understand from
> http://www.archlinux.org/news/dropping-tcp_wrappers-support/
> what is exact issue with tcp_wrappers.

See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23929
 
Old 09-02-2011, 02:04 PM
Sergej Pupykin
 
Default ?

At Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:22:02 +0200,
Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23929
>

It is not issue. This is rather controversial philosophy/architecture
questions and care about home users (If they forget that libwrap does
not cover all network applications).

As I understand tcp_wrappers still works fine despite of 14+ years old
release.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 02:16 PM
Dave Reisner
 
Default ?

On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:04:04PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
> At Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:22:02 +0200,
> Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23929
> >
>
> It is not issue. This is rather controversial philosophy/architecture
> questions and care about home users (If they forget that libwrap does
> not cover all network applications).
>
> As I understand tcp_wrappers still works fine despite of 14+ years old
> release.

No, that's exactly the issue. We decided, after bringing up the idea for
the third time [1] that tcp_wrappers needs to go. There was plenty of
support and _zero_ opposition to this decision, so we went ahead with it.

d

[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-July/020931.html
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org