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 06-03-2010, 02:18 AM
Chen Lei
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

2010/6/3 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
>>
> 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
>
>
I don't think provide both upstart and initscript for one package will
benefic fedora, especially in the scenario when the upstart scripts
have seriously functional regression compared with initscripts.
Currently, only one packager provide both upstart scripts and
initscripts.

We currently don't have a policy about upstart scripts, however a
single person to change his packaging style agaist all other packagers
in the repo will confuse many linux users or system administators.

Before opposing me, you can look at those -upstart subpackages, you'll
found they are not as good as you imagined. They are different from
other system upstart scripts.

Regards,
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 03:11 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:18:59AM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/6/3 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> >>
> > 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
> >
> >
> I don't think provide both upstart and initscript for one package will
> benefic fedora, especially in the scenario when the upstart scripts
> have seriously functional regression compared with initscripts.
> Currently, only one packager provide both upstart scripts and
> initscripts.
>
> We currently don't have a policy about upstart scripts, however a
> single person to change his packaging style agaist all other packagers
> in the repo will confuse many linux users or system administators.
>
> Before opposing me, you can look at those -upstart subpackages, you'll
> found they are not as good as you imagined. They are different from
> other system upstart scripts.
>
I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora to
prevent people from providing functionality above the minimum.

If someone would let the FPC know how to write good upstart scripts and
packages we could certainly write up minimum requirements for the case where
someone does want to package an upstart script.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 03:52 AM
Genes MailLists
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On 06/02/2010 11:11 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
=
> If someone would let the FPC know how to write good upstart scripts and
> packages we could certainly write up minimum requirements for the case where
> someone does want to package an upstart script.

And systemd is coming soon too ... i think it would be healthy to let
folks try these out and decide for themselves which should be our
default in fedora ... systemd sounds good ...

gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 02:43 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

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

IMHO we need to unsponsor him and orphan his packages. There are way too
many guideline violations and bizarre nonstandard stuff in his packages.

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

Right, in this case the Version tag is a blatant violation of our guidelines
and shows that the maintainer either doesn't understand them at all or
doesn't care about them at all. Either way, he needs to get unsponsored.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 02:47 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On 06/04/2010 08:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Right, in this case the Version tag is a blatant violation of our guidelines
> and shows that the maintainer either doesn't understand them at all or
> doesn't care about them at all. Either way, he needs to get unsponsored.
>

Would you mind filing a ticket with FESCo detailing the guideline
violations and any other non-standard items for all the packages? FESCo
can then decide on the appropriate course correction.

Rahul


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 02:50 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
> packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora
> to prevent people from providing functionality above the minimum.

The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style initscripts
compliant to our guidelines) gets pushed to a subpackage to make room for
the optional and completely unneccessary junk, and that in some cases yum
prefers the nonstandard subpackages.

Plus, he's also violating other guidelines, e.g. for this package:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176308
Version contains a SVN revision tag which MUST be in Release instead
according to our guidelines. (Thanks to Chen Lei for pointing that out.)
(And look at the mess that nonstandard versioning made to the bumping tool
spot used, see the insane Release values it produced. We have versioning
rules for a reason.)

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 03:16 AM
Chen Lei
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

2010/6/4 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at>:
>
> The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style initscripts
> compliant to our guidelines) gets pushed to a subpackage to make room for
> the optional and completely unneccessary junk, and that in some cases yum
> prefers the nonstandard subpackages.
>
> Plus, he's also violating other guidelines, e.g. for this package:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176308
> Version contains a SVN revision tag which MUST be in Release instead
> according to our guidelines. (Thanks to Chen Lei for pointing that out.)
> (And look at the mess that nonstandard versioning made to the bumping tool
> spot used, see the insane Release values it produced. We have versioning
> rules for a reason.)
>
> * * * *Kevin Kofler
>
> --
I found that spot disable building static libs in his package two days
ago, but he reenable yesterday, I really don't know why.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176341


Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 03:34 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:50:39AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm not going to oppose you on the ground that enrico has written good
> > packages; I'll oppose you on the groupnd that it's not the job of Fedora
> > to prevent people from providing functionality above the minimum.
>
> The problem is that the mandatory functionality (SysV-style initscripts
> compliant to our guidelines) gets pushed to a subpackage to make room for
> the optional and completely unneccessary junk, and that in some cases yum
> prefers the nonstandard subpackages.
>
> Plus, he's also violating other guidelines, e.g. for this package:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176308
> Version contains a SVN revision tag which MUST be in Release instead
> according to our guidelines. (Thanks to Chen Lei for pointing that out.)
> (And look at the mess that nonstandard versioning made to the bumping tool
> spot used, see the insane Release values it produced. We have versioning
> rules for a reason.)
>
<nod> Like I say, I'm not replying to points regarding whether enrico is
doing good or bad packaging. I'm replying to the quoting of a section of the
Packaging Guidelines as supposed support for banning other initscripts.
To reiterate, there is no such ban in the Packaging Guidelines.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 08:23 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:43:58AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chen Lei wrote:
> > I found the maintainer violates fedora package/naming guideline many
> > times, we need a people to persuade him to obey those guideline.
>
> IMHO we need to unsponsor him and orphan his packages. There are way too
> many guideline violations and bizarre nonstandard stuff in his packages.

I think that this would be a huge mistake. Enrico is a very talented
packagers he generally is ahead of his time. I was myself sometimes annoyed
by the peculiarities of his packages, but he always comply to guidelines.

I think that pushing talented packagers that don't think exactly like
the median fedora packager and show some originality is not healthy.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Richard Zidlicky
 
Default -upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:13:02PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
> still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
> packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.
>
> 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?

imho this is waste of resources and will only confuse most users. Decide for
any init style that you are familiar with or that is suported by upstream.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:22 PM.

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