Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Micha Lenk]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

retitle 609864 override: smcroute:net/extra
reassign 609864 ftp.debian.org
thanks

Hi Julien, hi Antonin,

Am 13.01.2011 12:18, schrieb Julien BLACHE:
> The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and
> leave pimd at Priority: optional.

I fully agree. I've just talked to one of the RMs: Apparently this is a
thing that should be done by the ftp-masters. So I'll now retitle this
bug to their requirements and reassign it to them. We will then need to
update the priority in debian/controll in the next upload.

> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> be installed at the same time either.

I just investigated the pimd/xorp situation:

- - pimd: Pimd does also unconditionally call setsockopt() with MRT_INIT
  on daemon startup. So it cannot co-exist with smcroute on the same
  system.

- - xorp: Without modifying /etc/default/xorp doesn't start the daemon
  at all. But even if the daemon is run (eg. with its default
  configuration) it apparently does not call setsockopt() with MRT_INIT
  on startup. I don't know though whether setsockopt() might get called
  later.

Given that xorp does not neccessarily interfere with smcroute, the only
conflicting package is pimd. Hence I now think it is reasonable to
simply let smcroute conflict with pimd and be done with it. I will cater
for updated priority and dependencies in the next upload (sometimes
after the Squeeze release).

Regards,
Micha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk08TBkACgkQWN0/4pnhQbSwFgCfTbK3umCv02p6aLTkiJ3l9MkU
wHQAnRx6uNXzOZmsWEGPZxo0hAcN554b
=o/FF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Julien BLACHE]

Micha Lenk  wrote:

Hi,

> I think the core point is: If the *default configuration* of the multicast
> routing packages in question cause access to the MRT, then it should conflict
> with other packages (which do so in their default configuration too).

The default configuration can be changed by the user. A static conflict
means the setup is impossible to do on a Debian system, although it's
perfectly valid.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE   |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer|   
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Micha Lenk]

Hi all,

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:59:56AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > >> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> > >> be installed at the same time either.
> > >
> > > They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
> > > routing table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a 
> > > socket
> > > after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above).
> > 
> > Yes, but it isn't as clear cut as it looks given xorp can do mc routing
> > or not depending on configuration (AIUI from the description). If that
> > is the case, you may want to use xorp for some tasks and pimd for mc
> > routing.
> 
> They will conflicts as well if you enable mc routing in xorp, but I
> would agree that we cannot just add static conflict between these to
> packages. I would say, that we can safely assume, that if the user is
> able to configure xorp she is capable of solving the conflict on MRT
> access (e.g. by removing pimd or reconfiguring xorp).

No, I disagree here. With the same arguing mailservers would need no conflict
with package "mail-transport-agent". Paraphrasing your wordings: If the user is
able to configure postfix she is capable of solving the conflict on TCP
listening socket on port 25 (e.g. by re-configuring the other daemons to use
another port). The case with "mail-transport-agent" is more complex though,
because it also involves a provider for the sendmail interface (ie.
/usr/lib/sendmail). But you could also consider the arguing for packages
conflicting with "pop3-server" and the like.

I think the core point is: If the *default configuration* of the multicast
routing packages in question cause access to the MRT, then it should conflict
with other packages (which do so in their default configuration too).

Regards,
Micha



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Antonin Kral]

Hi all,

thanks for a nice lift off.

* Julien BLACHE  [2011-01-13 18:44] wrote:
> Good; priority should be given to a "real" mc routing daemon, ie what
> the user expects to get when she installs multicast-routing-daemon.

This will definitely work for me.

> >> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> >> be installed at the same time either.
> >
> > They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
> > routing table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a socket
> > after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above).
> 
> Yes, but it isn't as clear cut as it looks given xorp can do mc routing
> or not depending on configuration (AIUI from the description). If that
> is the case, you may want to use xorp for some tasks and pimd for mc
> routing.

They will conflicts as well if you enable mc routing in xorp, but I
would agree that we cannot just add static conflict between these to
packages. I would say, that we can safely assume, that if the user is
able to configure xorp she is capable of solving the conflict on MRT
access (e.g. by removing pimd or reconfiguring xorp).

Antonin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Julien BLACHE]

Micha Lenk  wrote:

Hi,

> Thus I maintain my suggestion to add Provides:/Conflicts: dependencies to a
> virtual package (e.g. 'multicast-routing-daemon', but feel free to suggest
> another name).

You make a valid point wrt the kernel interface and I fully concur.

>> The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and
>> leave pimd at Priority: optional.
>
> This would be fine with me as well.

Good; priority should be given to a "real" mc routing daemon, ie what
the user expects to get when she installs multicast-routing-daemon.

>> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
>> be installed at the same time either.
>
> They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
> routing table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a socket
> after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above).

Yes, but it isn't as clear cut as it looks given xorp can do mc routing
or not depending on configuration (AIUI from the description). If that
is the case, you may want to use xorp for some tasks and pimd for mc
routing.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE   |  Debian, because code matters more 
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer|   
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Julien,

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:18:49PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as
> > (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that 
> > both
> 
> smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :)
> 
> A multicast routing daemon is a daemon that manages the multicast
> routing table dynamically based on IGMPv3 signalling.

Speaking about real multicast routing you're right and I totally agree that
smcroute is *not* a multicast routing daemon in this sense.

But from the point of view of the kernel smcroute claims that it *is* a
multicast routing daemon by calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT or MRT6_INIT.
And exactly this setsockopt() call is the reason why you cannot start another
(or a real) multicast routing daemon when smcroute is running: The kernel by
design refuses to setsockopt() with MRT_INIT on another socket as long as the
previous MRT_INIT-ialized socket is still open.

Thus I maintain my suggestion to add Provides:/Conflicts: dependencies to a
virtual package (e.g. 'multicast-routing-daemon', but feel free to suggest
another name).

> The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and
> leave pimd at Priority: optional.

This would be fine with me as well.

> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> be installed at the same time either.

They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
routing table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a socket
after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above).

Regards,
Micha



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Julien BLACHE]

Micha Lenk  wrote:

Hi,

> This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as
> (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that both

smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :)

A multicast routing daemon is a daemon that manages the multicast
routing table dynamically based on IGMPv3 signalling.

So the virtual package thing doesn't apply here; it could make sense
between xorp and pimd, as they both handle multicast routing.

The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and
leave pimd at Priority: optional.

The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
be installed at the same time either.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -  
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Antonin,

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:37:36AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote:
> I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and
> smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as
> conflict to pimd.

This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as
(the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that both
packages provide and conflict with?  This is the generic mechanism to ensure
that there is only one implementation of a certain daemon installed at a time.
And this would also work if yet another multicast routing daemon is uploaded to
Debian which then simply needs to provide/conflict this virtual package too in
order to conflict with all existing multicast routing daemon packages...

> Both packages are currently 'optional', so adding the conflict violates
> policy:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
> 
> 'Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other.'
> 
> So the simplest way would be to change priority of both packages to
> 'extra'. How do you feel about such change? Change in pimd is handled in
> Bug#609861

Priority 'extra' is fine with me too.

Regards,
Micha



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

[Antonin Kral]

Package: smcroute
Version: 0.94.1-1
Severity: normal

Hi,

I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and
smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as
conflict to pimd.

Both packages are currently 'optional', so adding the conflict violates
policy:

http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities

'Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other.'

So the simplest way would be to change priority of both packages to
'extra'. How do you feel about such change? Change in pimd is handled in
Bug#609861

Thank you,

   Antonin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org