tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:06:12AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> See: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/347

Yeah, I remember this coming up before with the issue of zillions of
dependencies.

The problem here is the output. I know (as discussed in that ticket,
actually) that the Fedora guidelines don't forbid output in the post
scripts. I think it _should_ be forbidden except in the case of errors, but
that's not the issue here. The problem is _what_ the message says, its tone,
and to whom it is addressed. All unhelpful and bad for Fedora.

--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 01:38:15PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> It's actually the same problem and both caused by the misusing of
> redhat-lsb. The tor package looks very different from other daemons in
> fedora, e.g. vsftpd squid etc, a small package with so many
> subpackages and a metapackage seems quite strange.

I'd really like to separate out that issue -- use or misuse of redhat-lsb,
packaging for generality vs. packaging for fedora -- from this one.

And this one is: packages should not print out messages complaining about
the state of other packages in Fedora. That's not the right process for
solving those issues. If redhat-lsb is broken, there's a procedure for
dealing with that, and it isn't "give confusing warnings to the end users!"




--
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Sun, 30 May 2010, Matthew Miller wrote:

> For the purposes of this complaint, I don't care. I do care that whenever
> you install the package, it spits out this gem:
>
> oouch... redhat-lsb is still broken. See the report
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053
> for details.

This comes up every six months. Everyone but one single individual agrees
with you. It just needs a provenpackager to tear it out.

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

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ryan Rix wrote:

> Airing out our dirty laundry for our users to see is not something that we
> should allow or promote. I'm all for reporting errors, but b*tching to
> users? No. I'm going to file a bug on this if someone else has not.

It's been filed many times, duplicated many times, closed many times.

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

I am sure there are more instances of reporting this bug.

Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state "maintainer is too
busy to fix". In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking
over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame
excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference
of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies.

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

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:55:26 -0400,
Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> wrote:
>
> Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state "maintainer is too
> busy to fix". In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking
> over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame
> excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference
> of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies.

Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

>> Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state "maintainer is too
>> busy to fix". In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking
>> over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame
>> excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference
>> of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies.
>
> Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer?

I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over
the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and
submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day
earlier, so his "personal" version instead of a "fedora" version got
accepted:

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

I don't care who maintains it, as long as we can get the package up to
spec so upstream does not feel they need to require to tell their
users "don't use the fedora package, use our rpm". That, and the
repeated tor discussions on package guidelines violations clearly
shows a maintainer issue.

I'm getting seriously tired of this tor package discussion every six
months. Seriously, just rip out the childish %post crap, and remove
all the non-fedora initscript sub package nonsense. This is not the
Enrico Project.

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

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:48:02 -0400,
Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> >>Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state "maintainer is too
> >>busy to fix". In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking
> >>over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame
> >>excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference
> >>of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies.
> >
> >Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer?
>
> I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over
> the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and
> submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day
> earlier, so his "personal" version instead of a "fedora" version got
> accepted:

The reason I asked is that they might be more willing to yank the package
from the current maintainer if there is someone willing to step in and
fix things rather than having to orphan it.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

>>> Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer?
>>
>> I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over
>> the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and
>> submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day
>> earlier, so his "personal" version instead of a "fedora" version got
>> accepted:
>
> The reason I asked is that they might be more willing to yank the package
> from the current maintainer if there is someone willing to step in and
> fix things rather than having to orphan it.

I am willing to maintain or co-maintain it, and pull it into compliance
with fedora package guidelines.

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

tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
 

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:55:53AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> FYI, FESCo decided on this particular issue that a provenpackager can fix
> tor to comply with our initscripts guidelines for released Fedoras. (As far
> as I know, the maintainer already fixed the Rawhide package.)

It's true; it is fixed in Rawhide. Okay then.

--
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel