again, was Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you. (fwd)
This nonsense is still present in th el5 package. Can a provenpackager please get rid of it. Bug 522053 is even closed now Paul Preparing...### [100%] 1:tor-core ### [ 33%] 2:tor-lsb### [ 67%] /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.70176: line 1: /usrp/lib/lsb/install_initd: No such file or directory oouch... redhat-lsb is still broken. See the report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053 for details. 3:tor### [100%] error: %postun(tor-lsb-0.2.1.19-4.el5.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:48:31 -0400 From: Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you. On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:55:53AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: FYI, FESCo decided on this particular issue that a provenpackager can fix tor to comply with our initscripts guidelines for released Fedoras. (As far as I know, the maintainer already fixed the Rawhide package.) It's true; it is fixed in Rawhide. Okay then. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:55:53AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: FYI, FESCo decided on this particular issue that a provenpackager can fix tor to comply with our initscripts guidelines for released Fedoras. (As far as I know, the maintainer already fixed the Rawhide package.) It's true; it is fixed in Rawhide. Okay then. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Tue 1 June 2010 8:48:02 am Paul Wouters wrote: I'm getting seriously tired of this tor package discussion every six months. Seriously, just rip out the childish %post crap, and remove all the non-fedora initscript sub package nonsense. This is not the Enrico Project. Halfway there, if you're up for testing: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598213#c3 Ryan -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == == http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word == signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:55:26 -0400, Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com wrote: Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state maintainer is too busy to fix. In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies. Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state maintainer is too busy to fix. In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies. Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer? I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day earlier, so his personal version instead of a fedora version got accepted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175799 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 I don't care who maintains it, as long as we can get the package up to spec so upstream does not feel they need to require to tell their users don't use the fedora package, use our rpm. That, and the repeated tor discussions on package guidelines violations clearly shows a maintainer issue. I'm getting seriously tired of this tor package discussion every six months. Seriously, just rip out the childish %post crap, and remove all the non-fedora initscript sub package nonsense. This is not the Enrico Project. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:48:02 -0400, Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com wrote: On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state maintainer is too busy to fix. In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies. Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer? I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day earlier, so his personal version instead of a fedora version got accepted: The reason I asked is that they might be more willing to yank the package from the current maintainer if there is someone willing to step in and fix things rather than having to orphan it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Does FESCO know you'd be willing to become the maintainer? I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day earlier, so his personal version instead of a fedora version got accepted: The reason I asked is that they might be more willing to yank the package from the current maintainer if there is someone willing to step in and fix things rather than having to orphan it. I am willing to maintain or co-maintain it, and pull it into compliance with fedora package guidelines. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
2010/6/1 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to: I've definately talked to quite a few of them (online and in person) over the years this has been going on. I even had a tor package made and submitted it, but Enrico and my package crossed paths and his was a day earlier, so his personal version instead of a fedora version got accepted: The reason I asked is that they might be more willing to yank the package from the current maintainer if there is someone willing to step in and fix things rather than having to orphan it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I'd like to see that fesco can assign some co-maintainers for tor and maybe some more packages from Enrico. Regardless of violating fedora package guideline, his package style is quite strance, e,g, He add noarch documention to tor main package, then leave tor binary into -core subpackage, he also add an useless upstart conf as an alternatives to initsrcipt, the package layout is very different with tor upstream and other packages in fedora. Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
Chen Lei wrote: The maintainer refuse some others to co-maintain tor package or help him to solve this issue. It's a bit complicated to fix this, fedora policy seems don't permit provenpackagers to commit a package if the maintainer are very unwilling to do so. It should be decided by fesco in which condition that a provenpackager can commit a package regardless the unwillingness of the package owner. FYI, FESCo decided on this particular issue that a provenpackager can fix tor to comply with our initscripts guidelines for released Fedoras. (As far as I know, the maintainer already fixed the Rawhide package.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
2010/6/2 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at: Chen Lei wrote: The maintainer refuse some others to co-maintain tor package or help him to solve this issue. It's a bit complicated to fix this, fedora policy seems don't permit provenpackagers to commit a package if the maintainer are very unwilling to do so. It should be decided by fesco in which condition that a provenpackager can commit a package regardless the unwillingness of the package owner. FYI, FESCo decided on this particular issue that a provenpackager can fix tor to comply with our initscripts guidelines for released Fedoras. (As far as I know, the maintainer already fixed the Rawhide package.) Kevin Kofler No yet, as I known:), he only add a sysv initscripr to cvs, the package in rawhide still use -lsb and -upstart. Also the upstart subpackage works silly, it may need further optimization or obsolete from tor package. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=176044 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=1999845filename=/etc/rc.d/init.d/tor -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Sat 29 May 2010 11:10:35 pm Matthew Miller wrote: And this one is: packages should not print out messages complaining about the state of other packages in Fedora. That's not the right process for solving those issues. If redhat-lsb is broken, there's a procedure for dealing with that, and it isn't give confusing warnings to the end users! +1 Airing out our dirty laundry for our users to see is not something that we should allow or promote. I'm all for reporting errors, but b*tching to users? No. I'm going to file a bug on this if someone else has not. It's pretty non-excellent of this package's maintainer, but judging by his previous actions I am not surprised. He has shown in the past that he has no qualms with breaking the be excellent to eachother rule. Ryan -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == == http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word == signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Ryan Rix wrote: Airing out our dirty laundry for our users to see is not something that we should allow or promote. I'm all for reporting errors, but b*tching to users? No. I'm going to file a bug on this if someone else has not. It's been filed many times, duplicated many times, closed many times. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 I am sure there are more instances of reporting this bug. Fixing init scripts and %post is now left in the state maintainer is too busy to fix. In the past I already offered co-maintainership or taking over the package due to my close relationship with upstream. It's a lame excuse for leaving it in the current state, since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Mon 31 May 2010 1:55:26 pm Paul Wouters wrote: since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies Then a provenpackager should fix it regardless of whether the maintainer is too busy to fix it. and even then, they shouldn't be maintaining packages they are too busy to fix! That's just as bad as blatently refusing to fix this issue. -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == == http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word == signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
2010/6/1 Ryan Rix r...@n.rix.si: On Mon 31 May 2010 1:55:26 pm Paul Wouters wrote: since that's the preference of the maintainer, which violates fedora packagaging policies Then a provenpackager should fix it regardless of whether the maintainer is too busy to fix it. and even then, they shouldn't be maintaining packages they are too busy to fix! That's just as bad as blatently refusing to fix this issue. -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == == http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word == The maintainer refuse some others to co-maintain tor package or help him to solve this issue. It's a bit complicated to fix this, fedora policy seems don't permit provenpackagers to commit a package if the maintainer are very unwilling to do so. It should be decided by fesco in which condition that a provenpackager can commit a package regardless the unwillingness of the package owner. Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 01:38:15PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote: It's actually the same problem and both caused by the misusing of redhat-lsb. The tor package looks very different from other daemons in fedora, e.g. vsftpd squid etc, a small package with so many subpackages and a metapackage seems quite strange. I'd really like to separate out that issue -- use or misuse of redhat-lsb, packaging for generality vs. packaging for fedora -- from this one. And this one is: packages should not print out messages complaining about the state of other packages in Fedora. That's not the right process for solving those issues. If redhat-lsb is broken, there's a procedure for dealing with that, and it isn't give confusing warnings to the end users! -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Sun, 30 May 2010, Matthew Miller wrote: For the purposes of this complaint, I don't care. I do care that whenever you install the package, it spits out this gem: oouch... redhat-lsb is still broken. See the report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053 for details. This comes up every six months. Everyone but one single individual agrees with you. It just needs a provenpackager to tear it out. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:39:14 -0400, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: So, clearly, there's some disagreement about what's fixed and what's broken. But printing out a passive-agressive warning to end-users is not the solution. The error message is confusing and very, very unhelpful. Worse, it's not _meant_ to be helpful to the poor end user -- it's meant to try to goad the other packager into action. Such things need to be taken up with FESCO, not fought about in user-visible debug output. See: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/347 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
2010/5/30 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 00:39:14 -0400, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: So, clearly, there's some disagreement about what's fixed and what's broken. But printing out a passive-agressive warning to end-users is not the solution. The error message is confusing and very, very unhelpful. Worse, it's not _meant_ to be helpful to the poor end user -- it's meant to try to goad the other packager into action. Such things need to be taken up with FESCO, not fought about in user-visible debug output. See: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/347 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I don't why the tor maintainer don't want to keep consistence with fedora package guideline and tor upstream. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:06:12AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: See: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/347 Yeah, I remember this coming up before with the issue of zillions of dependencies. The problem here is the output. I know (as discussed in that ticket, actually) that the Fedora guidelines don't forbid output in the post scripts. I think it _should_ be forbidden except in the case of errors, but that's not the issue here. The problem is _what_ the message says, its tone, and to whom it is addressed. All unhelpful and bad for Fedora. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you.
2010/5/30 Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:06:12AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: See: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/347 Yeah, I remember this coming up before with the issue of zillions of dependencies. The problem here is the output. I know (as discussed in that ticket, actually) that the Fedora guidelines don't forbid output in the post scripts. I think it _should_ be forbidden except in the case of errors, but that's not the issue here. The problem is _what_ the message says, its tone, and to whom it is addressed. All unhelpful and bad for Fedora. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ -- It's actually the same problem and both caused by the misusing of redhat-lsb. The tor package looks very different from other daemons in fedora, e.g. vsftpd squid etc, a small package with so many subpackages and a metapackage seems quite strange. Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
