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 06-02-2010, 06:17 PM
Chen Lei
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

2010/6/3 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at>:
> Chen Lei wrote:
>> Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
>> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
>> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
>> sysinit subpackage?
>
> No. This is against our packaging guidelines. You'll notice that all the
> offending packages are by the same maintainer (you easily recognize them
> from the ridiculous Release versions).
>
> All those -upstart and -lsb subpackages must go away and the -sysv
> subpackages must be merged into the main package.
>
> * * * *Kevin Kofler
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>

I found the maintainer violates fedora package/naming guideline many
times, we need a people to persuade him to obey those guideline.


A more ridiculous release number and a wrong version number:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176308

Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:21 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chen Lei wrote:
> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> > scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> > sysinit subpackage?
>
> No. This is against our packaging guidelines.

Where do you see that?

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:30 PM
Chen Lei
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

2010/6/3 Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chen Lei wrote:
>> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
>> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
>> > scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
>> > sysinit subpackage?
>>
>> No. This is against our packaging guidelines.
>
> Where do you see that?
>
> --
> Matt
>
I'm not sure about whether ship upstart scripts violate our
guidelines, but fedora package guideline has - "Currently, only
SystemV-style initscripts are supported in Fedora".
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Initscripts


Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:43 PM
Michael Cronenworth
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> transition period packages should just ship both files and it'll work
> with both init systems.

s/systemd/upstart/
This is not the first time this has been said.

Even though there may not be an initiative to switch from sysv to
upstart, why do you feel so strongly that people will switch from sysv
to systemd? Are you going to implement a Fedora policy that bans sysv,
say, in Fedora 16? That's about the only way you could make it happen.

If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time
and time again, there are other features that deserve attention.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 07:24 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, 02.06.10 13:43, Michael Cronenworth (mike@cchtml.com) wrote:

>
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> > think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> > transition period packages should just ship both files and it'll work
> > with both init systems.
>
> s/systemd/upstart/
> This is not the first time this has been said.

You are surprised that I believe in the software I am writing?

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 07:27 PM
Tom Lane
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

Michael Cronenworth <mike@cchtml.com> writes:
> If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
> said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time
> and time again, there are other features that deserve attention.

Quite. As a packager looking on from the sidelines, this discussion
leaves me wondering why I should expend my non-copious free time on
implementing upstart^H^H^Hsystemd^H^H^Hmaybe something else next year
init scripts. I'll just stick with the tested sysv ones, thanks.

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 07:39 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, 02.06.10 15:27, Tom Lane (tgl@redhat.com) wrote:

>
> Michael Cronenworth <mike@cchtml.com> writes:
> > If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> > all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> > confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
> > said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time
> > and time again, there are other features that deserve attention.
>
> Quite. As a packager looking on from the sidelines, this discussion
> leaves me wondering why I should expend my non-copious free time on
> implementing upstart^H^H^Hsystemd^H^H^Hmaybe something else next year
> init scripts. I'll just stick with the tested sysv ones, thanks.

Well, while I do object to this kind of conservative thinking I am
actually not opposed to the conclusion.

i.e. it's fine if people just ship sysv in most cases. It's fine to have
a slow transition. As long as the core packages have native scripts and
even socket-based activation we already win a lot.

But anyway, we probably should not continue the systemd discussion here,
at this time.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Michael Cronenworth <mike@cchtml.com> wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> If you can make everyone move away from sysv to something else, then by
> all means I'll do my best to aid in patches, but I don't have much
> confidence since everything that has been said about systemd has been
> said of upstart a few years ago. Instead of reinventing the wheel time
> and time again, there are other features that deserve attention.

I think its really premature to talk about any situation where we
forcibly drop sysv compatibility. Way way premature. It may never be
possible in reality.

You'll note that so far we haven't actually encouraged the use of
upstart native scripts. It's difficult to see how one could lose
confidence based on our upstart experience when the reality is we've
barely moved away from sysv. We have just a few native upstart
scripts. We've essentially been running upstart in sysv compatibility
mode putting nearly zero demands on casual packagers to do anything
with regard to making init scripts native. That's actually part of
the problem with upstart, its lingered for so long in a sort of
compatibility mode that its not clear what the realizable benefits
actually are. I don't think I've seen any quantitative analysis of
the impact of upstart native configs in any real deployment scenario.
This is one of the things I'm looking forward to seeing in future
systemd discussion.

I fully expect that systemd integration to start in a sysv
compatibility mode..but with real native configuration usage up front
in enough components for us to work with so we can all get a taste of
the impact. I fully anticipate systemd sysv compatibility mode as a
priority to make sure no casual maintainer is forced to build native
configs out of the gate on their own. i fully expect, and trust, that
the people who really grok systemd are going to be heavily involved
with ensuring the first set of native systemd services are exemplary
examples for the rest of us to follow...and to do our best to break.
If the wins are obvious, then work on native configs will snowball
based on a desire to maximize the achievable benefits.

All Lennart is saying is that systemd will have a better experience
for packagers while we are navigating the switch-over period. We won't
have to play games with subpackages..we ship both sysv and native
systemd in the same package. Eventually Fedora project leadership may
decide that native configs will be required for new packages or what
not as a policy decision...but that discussion is a long long long way
off. Let's just see if we can actually get systemd in early into F14
testing, relying on sysv compatibility primarily so we can feel
comfortable that its been well tested.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 09:02 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 01:43:10PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
> > think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
> > transition period packages should just ship both files and it'll work
> > with both init systems.
>
> s/systemd/upstart/
> This is not the first time this has been said.
>
> Even though there may not be an initiative to switch from sysv to
> upstart, why do you feel so strongly that people will switch from sysv
> to systemd? Are you going to implement a Fedora policy that bans sysv,
> say, in Fedora 16? That's about the only way you could make it happen.
>
Well.... one of the reasons that we are still using sysvinit compatibility
for upstart is that people have been actively told not to switch to native
upstart scripts. So our current situation is not really an indicator of
what to expect with a new init system where we actively tell people to
switch.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 09:05 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:30:23AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/6/3 Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Chen Lei wrote:
> >> > Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
> >> > one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> >> > scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> >> > sysinit subpackage?
> >>
> >> No. This is against our packaging guidelines.
> >
> > Where do you see that?
> >
> > --
> > Matt
> >
> I'm not sure about whether ship upstart scripts violate our
> guidelines, but fedora package guideline has - "Currently, only
> SystemV-style initscripts are supported in Fedora".
> hshiottp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Initscripts
>
This is intended to tell people that SystemVinit scripts are mandatory for
services managed by the init system. But providing native upstart as an
addition (or initng, minit, etc) is not prohibited by this.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 PM.

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