Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 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.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=detailsid=1133 which is the upstream bug tracker, That's the wrong place to report Fedora issues. Information in this tracker are outdated too. and I told you those bugs were filed in a joined session with 5 tor developers at GSoC. When you have such insider contacts, why are you communicating in such a perfidious way (I understand your logging reasons in [1] vs. your offenses in this thread) instead of using your contacts to close the bugs in the other bugtracker? No. your %post may not output anything. %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. It's a bug in tor. You're just pissing over the endusers with your fight over init systems. If you cared about the users of the tor package, you would work around I workaround the redhat-lsb bug. Enrico Footnotes: [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373#c8 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
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 %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything, and that it just plain MUST NOT fail. The fact that redhat-lsb is buggy is also only relevant because you're using the LSB stuff instead of using plain initscripts as REQUIRED by our guidelines. You MUST use plain initscripts, not -lsb, -upstart or -bikeshed. And those initscripts belong directly in the package, not some subpackage Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
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* FAIL!!! The mandatory (MUST) guideline is that %post MUST NOT OUTPUT anything, and that it just plain MUST NOT fail. In the meanwhile, since Fedora 10 rpm doesn't leave duplicates around if %post or %postun fails. So it's not as big a deal as it used to be. - Panu - -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
Enrico Scholz wrote: Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 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 to be relevant anyway because your scriptlet already works around it, that's why our scriptlet snippets often have /dev/null 2/dev/null for commands known to sometimes be noisy. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 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 when the failure is not going to be relevant anyway because your scriptlet already works around it, that's why our scriptlet snippets often have /dev/null 2/dev/null for commands known to sometimes be noisy. install_initd is not known to be noisy Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
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
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
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 disabled logging anyways? Afaics, it only requires a simple change in a conf file, which is something a user can be expected to do. And security by default is something I can only support. Regards Till pgphQ4gTY7oOc.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com 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 something like '%postun() script failed'. RH/Fedora should fix its core utils before it can expect to follow such guidelines. I don't even know what to say here. A provenpackager should just fix your %post lsb output. its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053), not tor Fixed init scripts to use Fedora Guideline Package version which prevents trying to execute non-existing files in /usr/lib/lsb/ That wasn't solved last time i looked. that was a bug in redhat-lsb which was fixed in F-10 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=375361). Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
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 http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=detailsid=1133 which is the upstream bug tracker, and I told you those bugs were filed in a joined session with 5 tor developers at GSoC. Please stop taking 2 line quotes out of context. Thanks. WONTFIX; The alternative would be something like '%postun() script failed'. RH/Fedora should fix its core utils before it can expect to follow such guidelines. I don't even know what to say here. A provenpackager should just fix your %post lsb output. its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053), not tor No. your %post may not output anything. It's a bug in tor. You're just pissing over the endusers with your fight over init systems. If you cared about the users of the tor package, you would work around any potential problems instead of cat'ing bugzilla numbers. Fixed init scripts to use Fedora Guideline Package version which prevents trying to execute non-existing files in /usr/lib/lsb/ That wasn't solved last time i looked. that was a bug in redhat-lsb which was fixed in F-10 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=375361). Okay. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
