On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
[ two year tor insanity ]
It's been two years. I'm done with this discussion. I'm not spending more
time on the "tor-enrico" pacakge.
Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Kevin Kofler 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,
from where do you have this information?
> especially not
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Kevin Kofler 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
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*
Kevin Kofler 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 workar
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
Paul Wouters 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.n
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 19:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> This guideline MUST be followed.
ah, the joys of the oxymoron!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
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 ht
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/de
Paul Wouters 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 so
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 disab
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; sor
Chen Lei wrote:
> Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
> tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
Right, but actually tor should simply include the normal SysV-style
initscripts (with initscripts dependencies, not lsb-core ones) inside the
pac
Also tsocks now are in the repo of fedora, so maybe you can include the tor
stuffs related to tsocks.
Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
在2010-03-03?18:27:47，"Enrico?Scholz"??写道：
>"Chen?Lei"??writes
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
You're not being blamed for the redhat-lsb packaging but for requiring
redhat-lsb in the first place. That package is not supposed to be required
by Fedora packages.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@list
"Chen Lei" writes:
> BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory
> should not be included in tor-core?
thx; was a leftover from GeoIP stuff which was removed due to anonymity
reasons. It will be fixed in the next packages.
Enrico
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
Kevin Kofler writes:
>> Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
>> have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
>
> Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native
> Upstarts scripts yet!
it's a somehow strange situation... ther
James Antill writes:
> You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a
> _huge_ difference between requiring "mount" and "libX*" ...
please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
> the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed.
initscripts are not required
Paul Wouters writes:
>>> 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 w
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 20:31 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> > anyway.
>
> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' pack
I think redhat-lsb should be forbideen strictly to be used in official fedora
and rpmfusion package, it's can only be used by third-part sofiware develpers
and packagers who do not familiar with fedora and want their packagers to
support multiple linux platform.
redhat-lsb is an encumbrance for
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
> have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native Upstarts
scripts yet!
We have packaging guidelines to follow for inits
I think redhat-lsb should be forbideen strictly to be used in official fedora
and rpmfusion package, it's can only be used by third-part sofiware develpers
and packagers who do not familiar with fedora and want their packagers to
support multiple linux platform.
redhat-lsb is an encumbrance for
Paul Wouters wrote:
> As noted before, the issue here is the Enrico is packging "his tor
> package", going against the desires of both Fedora guidelines and Tor
> upstream.
It's really that Enrico is inventing his own baroque packaging system for
initscripts, with a bizarre mess of subpackages, w
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Should be easy to fix (but too bad doing it that way results in such
> punishment!)
As far as I can tell, the package is not compliant with our packaging
guidelines (see the guidelines for initscripts) and as such can be fixed by
any provenpackager.
Kevin Kofler
-
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>> It does not log anything because Enrico broke logging in tor package.
>
> Not that this was the reason, but it is the upstream setup to have
> logging disabled. Your comment is unrelated to this discussion because
> logging can be done into a file and d
Paul Wouters writes:
>>> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
>>> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
>>> tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ...
>>> although it does not log anything, does not extract/pac
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:21:55PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>
> > Jesse Keating writes:
> >
> >> 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
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Enrico Scholz (enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de) said:
>> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
>> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
>> tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fspro
Eric Sandeen (sand...@redhat.com) said:
> I'm guessing e2fsprogs may have been sucked in due to the various tools it
> has (had) in its junkbox. Lots of those which are not ext2-specific (blkid
> for example) have been split out or moved to util-linux-ng.
Sort of.
...
* Mon Oct 05 1998 Cristian
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
>>> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
>>> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
>>> tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ...
>>> although
Bill Nottingham writes:
>> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package,
>> then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool,
>> mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack
>> anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configure
Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
> > All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
> > E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
> > tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ...
> > although it does not log anything,
Enrico Scholz (enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de) said:
> > I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> > anyway.
>
> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
> tor would s
Dave Jones writes:
> > | yum install tor-core tor-upstart
>
> still no good, because tor-upstart requires tor which requires tor-lsb
> which...
thx for noticing this; this requirement is broken and has been fixed
now. I did not noticed it myself because I use yet another instance of
'init(tor)
On 03/02/2010 07:48 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> The tor package is at least fixable.
Over the dead body of the current package maintainer. That's the root of
the problem.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 20:31 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> > anyway.
>
> All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
> E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' pack
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:23:22PM +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Enrico Scholz writes:
>
> > | yum install tor tor-upstart
>
> should be
>
> | yum install tor-core tor-upstart
still no good, because tor-upstart requires tor which requires tor-lsb which...
Dave
--
devel mailin
Adam Williamson writes:
> I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts
> anyway.
All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains.
E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then
tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool,
Enrico Scholz writes:
> | yum install tor tor-upstart
should be
| yum install tor-core tor-upstart
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Jesse Keating writes:
>
>> 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
Dave Jones writes:
> (12:24:07:r...@firewall:~)# yum install tor
fwiw; when you can not wait for a fixed redhat-lsb package, do
| yum install tor tor-upstart
Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
Jesse Keating writes:
> 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?
tor-lsb requires only lsb-co
Adam Williamson (awill...@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
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:43:13PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Adam Williamson (awill...@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 al
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Williamson (awill...@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
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 13:25 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Williamson (awill...@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 sepa
Adam Williamson (awill...@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 j
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
> >
> > T
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 thing
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 /requ
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:06:25PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> but if it isn't, then tor-upstart requires tor which is going to require
> tor-lsb.
> yes - that's never going to end well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569933
--
Matthew Miller
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructio
Le mardi 02 mars 2010 à 09:51 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> 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/
>
y
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it
>> out.
>> I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other
>> stuff
>> unnecessary for routing
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:59:52PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> especially considering what it provides :(
> repoquery -ql tor-lsb
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor
> /var/run/tor
Check out the post/preun scripts:
%post lsb
/usr/lib/lsb/install_initd %_initrddir/tor || {
cat <&2
oouch
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it out.
> I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other stuff
> unnecessary for routing network packets.
>
> What happened next has me lost for w
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 anythi
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, 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
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
cr
So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it out.
I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other stuff
unnecessary for routing network packets.
What happened next has me lost for words.
Our dependency chains suck.
Dave
(12:24:07:r...
61 matches
Mail list logo
