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

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:51:17AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > --> Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package:
> > > tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686
> >
> > This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/
> > by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of
> > crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it
> > required is rather... lame.
>
> Why do we even bother supporting bullshit standards like LSB ?
>
> We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
> bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)

It wouldn't be CRAZY to break out the lsb pkg like nim suggested into
scripts + all the rest.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:22 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 13:14 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:51:17AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > --> Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package:
> > > tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686
> >
> > This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/
> > by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of
> > crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it
> > required is rather... lame.
>
> Why do we even bother supporting bullshit standards like LSB ?
>
> We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
> bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)

I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both
bits in the headers?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
> > We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
> > bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)
>
> I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both
> bits in the headers?

No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job
file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their
services yet, but since when have people listened...)

Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:34 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 13:25 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
> > > We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
> > > bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)
> >
> > I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> > anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both
> > bits in the headers?
>
> No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job
> file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their
> services yet, but since when have people listened...)

oh, yeah, that's right. we have SysV scripts with the LSB stuff in the
headers. no need to depend on redhat-lsb for that, though, so far as I
can figure?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:43 PM
Paul Wouters
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
>>> We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
>>> bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)
>>
>> I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
>> anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both
>> bits in the headers?
>
> No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job
> file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their
> services yet, but since when have people listened...)

Note that I've requested a lot of that stuff to go away multiple times.
I even have support from upstream (CC:ed on the message) to bring sanity
to the package. Upstream has started to tell people to ignore the fedora
package and use their own supplied rpm

Please do not drop this package from Fedora. I'd gladly help to make
it compliant to the Fedora Guidelines, as I have done before, if Enricho
does not want to do this.

See also:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175433
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175799

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:48 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
> > > I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> > > anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both
> > > bits in the headers?
> >
> > No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job
> > file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their
> > services yet, but since when have people listened...)
>
> oh, yeah, that's right. we have SysV scripts with the LSB stuff in the
> headers. no need to depend on redhat-lsb for that, though, so far as I
> can figure?

If you use lsb-defined headers, no.
If you use lsb-defined init script functions, yes.

Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-02-2010, 05:48 PM
Dave Jones
 
Default tor dependency insanity.

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:43:13PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
> >>> We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of
> >>> bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc)
> >>
>
> Please do not drop this package from Fedora. I'd gladly help to make
> it compliant to the Fedora Guidelines, as I have done before, if Enricho
> does not want to do this.

to clarify, I was (half jokingly) suggesting removal of the redhat-lsb package, not tor.
The tor package is at least fixable.

Dave

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52 PM.

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