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 03-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Paul Wouters
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:

>>>> The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
>>>
>>> ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
>>
>> That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
>> more pressing bugs required you to fix them.
>
> ok; sorry that I thought that you were/spoke for upstream.

I met with them on numerous occasions (eg last at GSoC Mentor Summit
where we toegether worked on fedora tor bugs and created numerous "upstream'
bug reports so I could file the below bugzilla report to you.

>> upstream still has this as an open bug:
>>
>> http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=1133
>
> This does not seem to mean very much... The other bugs mentioned in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 are still open
> although some (all?) of them are objectively solved.

WONTFIX:

* Sun Dec 17 2006 Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> -
0.1.1.26-1
- do not turn on logging by default; it's easier to say "we do not log
anything" to the police instead of enumerating the logged event
classes and trying to explain that they do not contain any valuable
information

Upstream reports a logging bug. You claim to know better and WONTFIX
because obviously you have more experience in the legalities of running
tor nodes and the police then upstream does......

And:

Output in %post violates Fedora Packaging guidelines

WONTFIX; The alternative would be something like '%postun() script
failed'. RH/Fedora should fix its core utils before it can expect to
follow such guidelines.

I don't even know what to say here. A provenpackager should just fix
your %post lsb output.

Also I filed:

> Fixed init scripts to use Fedora Guideline Package version which
> prevents trying to execute non-existing files in /usr/lib/lsb/

That wasn't solved last time i looked.

I also don't see any ulimit support in tor.lsb required for running
larger tor nodes.

I haven't looked through the tor upstream bug tracker recently to see
what other issues are there. But the fact that tor upstream is
recommending not using fedora packages is bad for everyone, and that
situation requires fixing.

So yes, that bugzilla bug is still open and with valid reasons.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:40 PM
Till Maas
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:

> Upstream reports a logging bug. You claim to know better and WONTFIX
> because obviously you have more experience in the legalities of running
> tor nodes and the police then upstream does......

What is the big problem with the disabled logging anyways? Afaics, it
only requires a simple change in a conf file, which is something a user
can be expected to do. And security by default is something I can only
support.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:12 PM
Enrico Scholz
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> writes:

> Upstream reports a logging bug.

??? You and Noa Resare were the only one who reported the non-logging as
a bug and some posts ago you said that you are not upstream. So, why do
you think that upstream reported a logging bug?


> WONTFIX; The alternative would be something like '%postun() script
> failed'. RH/Fedora should fix its core utils before it can expect to
> follow such guidelines.
>
> I don't even know what to say here. A provenpackager should just fix
> your %post lsb output.

its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053),
not tor


>> Fixed init scripts to use Fedora Guideline Package version which
>> prevents trying to execute non-existing files in /usr/lib/lsb/
>
> That wasn't solved last time i looked.

that was a bug in redhat-lsb which was fixed in F-10
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=375361).



Enrico
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:16 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

On 03/04/2010 01:42 AM, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>
> its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053),
> not tor
>

Why do you have a dependency on redhat-lsb ?

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 08:40 PM
Paul Wouters
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:

>> Upstream reports a logging bug.
>
> ??? You and Noa Resare were the only one who reported the non-logging as
> a bug and some posts ago you said that you are not upstream. So, why do
> you think that upstream reported a logging bug?

I pointed you to http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=1133
which is the upstream bug tracker, and I told you those bugs were filed in a
joined session with 5 tor developers at GSoC. Please stop taking 2 line quotes
out of context. Thanks.

>> WONTFIX; The alternative would be something like '%postun() script
>> failed'. RH/Fedora should fix its core utils before it can expect to
>> follow such guidelines.
>>
>> I don't even know what to say here. A provenpackager should just fix
>> your %post lsb output.
>
> its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053),
> not tor

No. your %post may not output anything. It's a bug in tor. You're
just pissing over the endusers with your fight over init systems.
If you cared about the users of the tor package, you would work around any
potential problems instead of cat'ing bugzilla numbers.

>>> Fixed init scripts to use Fedora Guideline Package version which
>>> prevents trying to execute non-existing files in /usr/lib/lsb/
>>
>> That wasn't solved last time i looked.
>
> that was a bug in redhat-lsb which was fixed in F-10
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=375361).

Okay.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 10:41 AM
Enrico Scholz
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> writes:

>>> Upstream reports a logging bug.
>>
>> ??? You and Noa Resare were the only one who reported the non-logging as
>> a bug and some posts ago you said that you are not upstream. So, why do
>> you think that upstream reported a logging bug?
>
> I pointed you to http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=1133
> which is the upstream bug tracker,

That's the wrong place to report Fedora issues. Information in this
tracker are outdated too.


> and I told you those bugs were filed in a joined session with 5
> tor developers at GSoC.

When you have such insider contacts, why are you communicating in such a
perfidious way ("I understand your logging reasons" in [1] vs. your
offenses in this thread) instead of using your contacts to close the
bugs in the other bugtracker?


> No. your %post may not output anything.

%post can give out something; e.g. '%post failed' which would happen
here due to the redhat-lsb bug. I just give out a more useful message
than '%post failed' which helps people to identify the problem.


> It's a bug in tor. You're just pissing over the endusers with your
> fight over init systems. If you cared about the users of the tor
> package, you would work around

I workaround the redhat-lsb bug.



Enrico

Footnotes:
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373#c8

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 11:56 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

Enrico Scholz wrote:
> %post can give out something; e.g. '%post failed' which would happen
> here due to the redhat-lsb bug. I just give out a more useful message
> than '%post failed' which helps people to identify the problem.

%post MUST *NEVER* FAIL!!!

The mandatory (MUST) guideline is that %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything, and
that it just plain MUST NOT fail.

The fact that redhat-lsb is buggy is also only relevant because you're using
the LSB stuff instead of using plain initscripts as REQUIRED by our
guidelines. You MUST use plain initscripts, not -lsb, -upstart or -bikeshed.
And those initscripts belong directly in the package, not some subpackage

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 12:28 PM
Enrico Scholz
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> writes:

>> %post can give out something; e.g. '%post failed' which would happen
>> here due to the redhat-lsb bug. I just give out a more useful message
>> than '%post failed' which helps people to identify the problem.
>
> %post MUST *NEVER* FAIL!!!

that's why it executes a workaround until redhat-lsb is fixed


> The mandatory (MUST) guideline is that %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything

this means only output like license agreements, but not diagnostic
output on stderr


Enrico
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 12:45 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Enrico Scholz wrote:
>> %post can give out something; e.g. '%post failed' which would happen
>> here due to the redhat-lsb bug. I just give out a more useful message
>> than '%post failed' which helps people to identify the problem.
>
> %post MUST *NEVER* FAIL!!!
>
> The mandatory (MUST) guideline is that %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything, and
> that it just plain MUST NOT fail.

In the meanwhile, since Fedora 10 rpm doesn't leave duplicates around if
%post or %postun fails. So it's not as big a deal as it used to be.

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:00 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default bz532373, was tor dependency insanity.

Enrico Scholz wrote:

> Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> writes:
>> The mandatory (MUST) guideline is that %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything
>
> this means only output like license agreements, but not diagnostic
> output on stderr

No, diagnostic output is also not allowed, especially not when the failure
is not going to be relevant anyway because your scriptlet already works
around it, that's why our scriptlet snippets often have >/dev/null
2>/dev/null for commands known to sometimes be noisy.

Kevin Kofler

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 PM.

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