Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.03.2319 +0200]: I have in the past had a server on a local area network where the network administrators refused to assign a static IP address. But they would set things up to promise to always give me the same IP address every time by DHCP and not assign that address to anyone else. But they wanted me to promise not to configure it as a static address on my server, because if something should go wrong, it was important that I be a good Net Citizen and not use an address which might have been (accidentally) given to a different computer on the network. In such a situation, I have set up fake DHCP clients, verified the result, and email me when things changed. And behind that, a static entry in /e/n/i. :) And anyway, even a real dhcp client will do, and there's no need for laptop-net or any other automatic network chooser. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.01.2110 +0200]: Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running servers would agree is a very big problem). This discussion is about laptops, a minor details that somehow didn't register with me. :) It is irrelevant what the hardware is. A laptop is not necessarily being used as a mobile computer; there have been plenty of cases of people for whom the most convenient computer around to use as a server for some purpose happened to be a laptop. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.01.2110 +0200]: Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running servers would agree is a very big problem). This discussion is about laptops, a minor details that somehow didn't register with me. :) It is irrelevant what the hardware is. A laptop is not necessarily being used as a mobile computer; there have been plenty of cases of people for whom the most convenient computer around to use as a server for some purpose happened to be a laptop. It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server interface, I would agree with you. But autoconfiguration for network interfaces when you expect to be able to reliably address them remotely is, well, the only polite thing I can say is, odd. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server interface, I would agree with you. But autoconfiguration for network interfaces when you expect to be able to reliably address them remotely is, well, the only polite thing I can say is, odd. I have in the past had a server on a local area network where the network administrators refused to assign a static IP address. But they would set things up to promise to always give me the same IP address every time by DHCP and not assign that address to anyone else. But they wanted me to promise not to configure it as a static address on my server, because if something should go wrong, it was important that I be a good Net Citizen and not use an address which might have been (accidentally) given to a different computer on the network. It worked just fine for years, and only ended when I bought a new server which I put in a standard colocation shop. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.03.2319 +0200]: I have in the past had a server on a local area network where the network administrators refused to assign a static IP address. But they would set things up to promise to always give me the same IP address every time by DHCP and not assign that address to anyone else. But they wanted me to promise not to configure it as a static address on my server, because if something should go wrong, it was important that I be a good Net Citizen and not use an address which might have been (accidentally) given to a different computer on the network. In such a situation, I have set up fake DHCP clients, verified the result, and email me when things changed. And behind that, a static entry in /e/n/i. :) -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system ... the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you -- daft as a bush, but very very ravenous); -- douglas adams, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server interface, I would agree with you. But autoconfiguration for network interfaces when you expect to be able to reliably address them remotely is, well, the only polite thing I can say is, odd. I have in the past had a server on a local area network where the network administrators refused to assign a static IP address. But they would set things up to promise to always give me the same IP address every time by DHCP and not assign that address to anyone else. But they wanted me to promise not to configure it as a static address on my server, because if something should go wrong, it was important that I be a good Net Citizen and not use an address which might have been (accidentally) given to a different computer on the network. It worked just fine for years, and only ended when I bought a new server which I put in a standard colocation shop. Have you looked at the package description that this bug is about? This is quite a bit more than DHCP client. While I would be unhappy about having machines I need access to have their addresses assigned by DHCP, it is trivial to configure the server side for static IP assignments, and it's also a decades old, robust technology. This is someone hanging their 'server' off of a tin can and string and being surprised it fell off the network. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you looked at the package description that this bug is about? This is quite a bit more than DHCP client. While I would be unhappy about having machines I need access to have their addresses assigned by DHCP, it is trivial to configure the server side for static IP assignments, and it's also a decades old, robust technology. This is someone hanging their 'server' off of a tin can and string and being surprised it fell off the network. No, it isn't. That wasn't my server, it is a laptop. My pbuilder dist on there is sid, and I was just doing a dselect-upgrade before I did a test build, in case that fixed the recent tar problems. laptop-net says that it will do stuff when the cable is plugged in or unplugged, *not* when it's upgraded, started up, or shut down. Any application screwing with your network interfaces during an upgrade better at least ask you first. It's the sort of thing that can kill a dselect-upgrade halfway through with no ability to get back in, just like installing a fresh kernel with the same version as the kernel being installed, or upgrading libc, which is why those packages have prompts for upgrading to make sure you're really ready. When you upgrade dhclient, it doesn't take your network interface offline and start from scratch. When I am in front of the keyboard, unplugging and plugging in connections, it's great that laptop-net does it's thing. But when I am connecting remotely and a debian upgrade just happens to cut me off of the internet, I get pissed off. I've removed the software from my laptop until this bug is fixed. I think that this behaviour is dangerous enough that it should not be allowed in any sort of software update without a huge fat warning, whether that's a debian update or any other distro/OS. The maintainer of the package has said he is going to try and fix this, so this problem should be moot soon. :) - Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
severity 195752 important thanks On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:43:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: But yeah, I'm not in an official position to say, but if this isn't considered a critical or at least grave bug, then I don't know what is. Agreed. I tried to ping the release team on IRC before, but they were all busy it seemed. So since changing severity isn't a final, irreversible action, I am just doing it. I really can't get this to be critical in any way; it does not make the entire system break (unless you count temporary loss of network access on a laptop critical), it does not cause serious data loss (or really data loss at all), and it does not introduce a security hole. I can't fit it into any of the other categories on http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt either; thus, I'm downgrading it to important. Sure, I agree it is a bad bug which should be fixed, but critical? Not IMHO. (In case of further disagreement, I'd leave it to the maintainer, who has the final say pending the RMs' input, to decide the severity.) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] severity 195752 important thanks On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:43:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: But yeah, I'm not in an official position to say, but if this isn't considered a critical or at least grave bug, then I don't know what is. Agreed. I tried to ping the release team on IRC before, but they were all busy it seemed. So since changing severity isn't a final, irreversible action, I am just doing it. I really can't get this to be critical in any way; it does not make the entire system break (unless you count temporary loss of network access on a laptop critical), it does not cause serious data loss (or really data loss at all), and it does not introduce a security hole. I can't fit it into any of the other categories on http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt either; thus, I'm downgrading it to important. Sure, I agree it is a bad bug which should be fixed, but critical? Not IMHO. (In case of further disagreement, I'd leave it to the maintainer, who has the final say pending the RMs' input, to decide the severity.) Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running servers would agree is a very big problem). However I suspect it is at least Serious. Definition of serious: serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. The maintainer apparently agrees this is a very nasty problem, and may very well feel that it makes the package unsuitable for release. Of course only the package maintainer could set the package to serious for that particular reason. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I really can't get this to be critical in any way; it does not make the entire system break (unless you count temporary loss of network access on a laptop critical), Since, as the bug explains and the other comments in the log explain, the loss of network may well *not* be temporary when this bug happens, I think it certainly is critical. If not critical, then certainly grave. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
also sprach Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.01.2110 +0200]: Actually I agree that critical is too high, grave might be reasonable, as it causes system downtime. (System downtime is something anybody running servers would agree is a very big problem). This discussion is about laptops, a minor details that somehow didn't register with me. :) If you upgrade your laptop over the network, I am sure you can fix the resulting problems. serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. The maintainer apparently agrees this is a very nasty problem, and may very well feel that it makes the package unsuitable for release. This sounds about right. Of course only the package maintainer could set the package to serious for that particular reason. I'll leave that up to you. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system before he died, rabbi zusya said: in the world to come they will not ask me, 'why were you not moses?' they will ask me, 'why were you not zusya?' signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
#195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
I just did an upgrade, and laptop-net caused my network interface to disappear. This is documented here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=195752 laptop-net restarts network interfaces when it is upgraded. This is *nasty*. If you are upgrading over a network, this causes your controlling terminal to disappear, leaving dpkg hung. If other packages are being upgraded at the same time, this can leave the entire system in an unusable state. Furthermore, if the network restart fails for some reason, the entire box is essentially killed: $ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] ssh: connect to host fliplid port 22: No route to host I'm *FURIOUS* that this bug has caused me to lose access to my laptop, and incredulous that THIS HAS BEEN A BUG FOR THREE YEARS!!! ... especially because it's configured to just leave the network interface alone when it's working. It's only supposed to drop/raise connections when the cable is unplugged/plugged in. *sigh* Looking at the bug's history it seems like they've tried to fix it a few times and failed. I guess I'm going to purge this package and just do an ifdown/ifup manually when I need to from now on. But yeah, I'm not in an official position to say, but if this isn't considered a critical or at least grave bug, then I don't know what is. - Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
severity 195752 critical thanks also sprach Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.29.2029 +0200]: But yeah, I'm not in an official position to say, but if this isn't considered a critical or at least grave bug, then I don't know what is. Agreed. I tried to ping the release team on IRC before, but they were all busy it seemed. So since changing severity isn't a final, irreversible action, I am just doing it. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system span tal:replace=here/signature / signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: #195752: Can somebody mark this bug as grave or critical?
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 20:43 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: severity 195752 critical thanks also sprach Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.29.2029 +0200]: But yeah, I'm not in an official position to say, but if this isn't considered a critical or at least grave bug, then I don't know what is. Agreed. I tried to ping the release team on IRC before, but they were all busy it seemed. So since changing severity isn't a final, irreversible action, I am just doing it. I've only recently picked up this package as maintainer. Nonetheless, I agree it's a very nasty bug. As a long-time user, doing updates via the network all the time, I'm surprised I haven't run into it myself My apologies that the bug has stayed open for so long; I'm still sorting through all the bug reports to understand and prioritize them. This one definitely goes to the top of the list of Things To Do and I'll repair it as quickly as I can. -- Ciao, al -- Al Stone Alter Ego: Open Source and Linux RD Debian Developer Hewlett-Packard Company http://www.debian.org E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
