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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
