Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: I accepted maintainership because I am the upstream author, and having [...] In short, I am actively developing the Debian and non-debian parts of it. It's just that I happen to do this in bursts, and some people get upset when the bursts they develop in don't always overlap with mine. That's actually why it is a good idea to either have a downstream maintainer (as you used to, when you were not the Debian maintainer of something you're also upstream), or co-maintainers that you can trust to pick up the pace when you can't do it (but still do it in a way that won't upset you). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
RE: debootstrapping and sysvinit
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work harder? For *you* ?? Get real. Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being notified: I get the impression maybe you should think over why you have accepted maintainership of the package. If you are maintaining it for your own sake only, then maybe you should give up maintainership and use a self-maintained, forked copy of the package. I accepted maintainership because I am the upstream author, and having the package in Debian/unstable is a great way to make sure it is stable. I can also try out new features, and Debian will have it first. Please excuse my ignorance of not recognizing you as the upstream author. Your statement above made me feel like you had no real interest in keeping the package working for everyone else. I'm sorry! Julian.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:03:53PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: I had a -5 ready to go at about the same time I saw the NMU. I was so annoyed I decided to let the issue go for a couple of days. Cool down period. If it was ready, why not upload it and be done with it? The NMU was versioned correctly, so it would not interfere with your upload. -- - mdz
RE: debootstrapping and sysvinit
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Tobias Wolter wrote: I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work harder? For *you* ?? Get real. Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being notified: I get the impression maybe you should think over why you have accepted maintainership of the package. If you are maintaining it for your own sake only, then maybe you should give up maintainership and use a self-maintained, forked copy of the package. No offense, Julian.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
Julian Mehnle wrote: Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Tobias Wolter wrote: I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work harder? For *you* ?? Get real. Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being notified: I get the impression maybe you should think over why you have accepted maintainership of the package. If you are maintaining it for your own sake only, then maybe you should give up maintainership and use a self-maintained, forked copy of the package. How about putting things back into proportion. There was quite an annying bug in the required base package sysvinit and we all thought it was bad to have it around for a week. (And yes, my pbuilder chroot broke, too, and so I had to make my own 4.1 which looked pretty much the same as the NMU.) This has been duely expressed in the fourfold bug report and on the -devel list. And yes, the NMU did not follow the recommended procedures and upset the maintainer. And many thought that was bad and it, too, was thoroughly discussed on the list. However, it should also be noted that this has been the only complaint about the NMU. So why is there the need of telling people to orphan their packages? After all, there's little indication that there is a severe and persistent problem at issue. Cheers T. pgpiJdK2BAluv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Tobias Wolter wrote: I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work harder? For *you* ?? Get real. Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being notified: I get the impression maybe you should think over why you have accepted maintainership of the package. If you are maintaining it for your own sake only, then maybe you should give up maintainership and use a self-maintained, forked copy of the package. I accepted maintainership because I am the upstream author, and having the package in Debian/unstable is a great way to make sure it is stable. I can also try out new features, and Debian will have it first. Currently I am working on bootlogd. I have finally found a good non-kernel solution to the how do I find out the real console problem that it has. I made major enhancements to it today. I also fixed several Debian bugs in other parts of the package, including some that were sent to me directly and not to the BTS. In short, I am actively developing the Debian and non-debian parts of it. It's just that I happen to do this in bursts, and some people get upset when the bursts they develop in don't always overlap with mine. Mike.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tobias Wolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2003-06-29T12:40:56+ (Sunday), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Yes, NMUing essential packages without bothering to contact the maintainer is cooperation at work. NOT. Between pissing off a maintainer and leaving a not-so-insignificant part of Debian quite utterly broken, I'd go for the former. We're talking about unstable here. Read the developers reference, http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html paragraph 5.11.3, under Uploading bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers should only be done by following this protocol: Now, did the NMU follow the rules in the developers reference ? Mike.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
* (Miquel van Smoorenburg) [...] | Now, did the NMU follow the rules in the developers reference ? aj opened[1] the bug hunting season last year.. it hasn't closed yet. (sure, waldi could have put the NMU in delayed..) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-announce-200201/msg00014.html -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
On 2003-07-01T07:49:20+ (Tuesday), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tobias Wolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2003-06-29T12:40:56+ (Sunday), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: Yes, NMUing essential packages without bothering to contact the maintainer is cooperation at work. NOT. Between pissing off a maintainer and leaving a not-so-insignificant part of Debian quite utterly broken, I'd go for the former. We're talking about unstable here. We're also taking about automated package builders who've been broke here. Read the developers reference, http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html paragraph 5.11.3, under Uploading bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers should ^^ only be done by following this protocol: Now, did the NMU follow the rules in the developers reference ? No. From my point of view, it's an acceptable step out of bounds. I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? -towo -- We're Germans and we use Unix. That's a combination of two demographic groups known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. - Hanno Mueller in de.comp.os.unix.programming pgpoX1f7cicyX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
Miquel, It is certainly true that sysvinit is an important package, and as such, it requires either frequent care and attention to deal with bugs (and you have a lot[1] of open bugs against the sysvinit package). For better or for worse, the release history of sysvinit has not been one which has been characterized by release early and often. When I offered to help earlier (because I had an important e2fsprogs bug that I couldn't close because it was blocked on a sysvinit bug), you admitted that you were pretty busy these days. Perhaps it would be useful for you to accept help in the form of a co-maintainer for the package? Sysvinit is important enough that this might be considered a good idea - Ted [1] 121 bugs, of which 56 are Important/Normal, and 61 are minor/wishlist, and 4 are fixed/pending.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tobias Wolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. From my point of view, it's an acceptable step out of bounds. For me it isn't. I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work harder? For *you* ?? Get real. I had a -5 ready to go at about the same time I saw the NMU. I was so annoyed I decided to let the issue go for a couple of days. Cool down period. Now you start screaming. Great. It's just what I wanted to avoid. Mike.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:35:50PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Now, did the NMU follow the rules in the developers reference ? aj opened[1] the bug hunting season last year.. it hasn't closed yet. While this is true, Bastian didn't actually follow even the lightweight NMU policy there. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-announce-200201/msg00014.html Note in particular from that message: ]* A maintainer upload is better than a non-maintainer upload. ] If the bug ] hasn't been filed yet, or the patch hasn't been sent to the bug, ] you almost certainly shouldn't be making an NMU... yet. ] email ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a note that says This bug can be fixed ] by applying this patch [...]. Any NMU that results in the maintainer being irritated is a bad NMU. That doesn't necessarily stop it from also being a necessary NMU, but irritating maintainers is something to avoid wherever possible. There really isn't any reason to do an NMU without having first sent the patch to the BTS (which will notify the maintainer), and for a bug that's already been around a week without causing massive chaos, there isn't really a reason no to give the maintainer a day or two to respond to your patch before NMUing. Cheers, a Be good to yourself, and to each other j -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpqu1xCYjneo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I've noticed that waldi already did a NMU. I'm moved. It's free-software and cooperation at work. Yes, NMUing essential packages without bothering to contact the maintainer is cooperation at work. NOT. Extremely annoyed, Mike.
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I've noticed that waldi already did a NMU. I'm moved. It's free-software and cooperation at work. Yes, NMUing essential packages without bothering to contact the maintainer is cooperation at work. NOT. On the other hand, your package have been breaking debootstrap and Debian installation. Could maintainers of base packages please take some time or care about Debian installation. If you change something, it's probably going to break debootstrap, so please take a bit of time to test with debootstrap, or be a bit tolerating. It was probably a bad-mannered NMU, but helped many Debian Developers. regards, junichi
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
On 2003-06-29T12:40:56+ (Sunday), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I've noticed that waldi already did a NMU. I'm moved. It's free-software and cooperation at work. Yes, NMUing essential packages without bothering to contact the maintainer is cooperation at work. NOT. Between pissing off a maintainer and leaving a not-so-insignificant part of Debian quite utterly broken, I'd go for the former. -towo -- circa mea pectora multa sunt suspiria de tua pulchritudine que me ledunt misere tui lucent oculi sicut solis radii sicut splendor fulguris lucem donat tenebris pgpZwKgziTcbE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 28. Juni 2003 04:09 schrieb Junichi Uekawa: Hi, I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I guess the problem is that sysvinit related postinst scripts are calling 'init' inside chroot, which fails, failing the whole installation process. The possible alternatives seem to be: 1. hack debootstrap to work around it 2. hack sysvinit to work around it 3. hack debootstrap/sysvinit so that sysvinit will know that postinst is running inside chroot and not try to run 'init' directly. But I'm not quite confident which way to go. The goal is to make Debian installable. Comments? I had the same problem in my chroots. This was fixed with the latest upload of sysvinit. Now it does the following: init u || true With this postinst doesnt fail. Michael - -- Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+/XReWSOgCCdjSDsRAu33AJ9yJnYkdG5PnYy3lGBg5WOoOW9RcwCgjYlo CeiPJ13p/ORyvmjuLvtzT5E= =j34I -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I guess the problem is that sysvinit related postinst scripts are calling 'init' inside chroot, which fails, failing the whole installation process. [...] The latest[1] version of sysvinit, an NMU, fixed this, apt-get upgrade inside the chroot worked again yesterday. IMHO this is the right way to fix this, because it broke not only debootstrap but our regular sid-chroots. cu andreas
Re: debootstrapping and sysvinit
I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I've noticed that waldi already did a NMU. I'm moved. It's free-software and cooperation at work. excited, junichi
debootstrapping and sysvinit
Hi, I've received several reports that debootstrap of sid has not been possible recently due to sysvinit. I guess the problem is that sysvinit related postinst scripts are calling 'init' inside chroot, which fails, failing the whole installation process. The possible alternatives seem to be: 1. hack debootstrap to work around it 2. hack sysvinit to work around it 3. hack debootstrap/sysvinit so that sysvinit will know that postinst is running inside chroot and not try to run 'init' directly. But I'm not quite confident which way to go. The goal is to make Debian installable. Comments? regards, junichi
