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 Information in this tracker are outdated too.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: tor dependency insanity.
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com writes: The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well. ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while more pressing bugs required you to fix them. ok; sorry that I thought that you were/spoke for upstream. upstream still has this as an open bug: http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=detailsid=1133 This does not seem to mean very much... The other bugs mentioned in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 are still open although some (all?) of them are objectively solved. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org writes: You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a _huge_ difference between requiring mount and libX* ... please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging... the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed. initscripts are not required for kernel at runtime: | $ rpm -e --test initscripts 21 | grep kernel | $ Netherless, this seems to be a packaging bug; initscripts are a Requires(pre/post) for kernel but none of these scriptlets use them. Perhaps grubby/mkinitrd/dracut needs them, but not the kernel. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes: Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually. Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native Upstarts scripts yet! it's a somehow strange situation... there were mass bug reports requiring LSB headers in initscripts, Fedora uses its proprietary, non LSB compliant initsystem for most of its services and provides upstart. I do not see any reason not to provide -upstart initscripts alternatively; beside their simplicity, the parallel startup and the removal of the racy pidfile mechanism, they allow to respawn services. What's wrong with giving users the choice to do a simple 'yum install tor' + all the graphical management stuff, or 'yum install tor-core tor-upstart'[1] + other configuration management methods (e.g. cfengine)? Enrico Footnotes: [1] requires -upstart packages without the bad 'Requires: tor' (e.g. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tor-0.2.1.24-1100.fc12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tor-0.2.1.24-1200.fc12) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Chen Lei supercy...@163.com writes: BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory should not be included in tor-core? thx; was a leftover from GeoIP stuff which was removed due to anonymity reasons. It will be fixed in the next packages. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Enrico Scholz wrote: please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging... You're not being blamed for the redhat-lsb packaging but for requiring redhat-lsb in the first place. That package is not supposed to be required by Fedora packages. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re:Re: tor dependency insanity.
Also tsocks now are in the repo of fedora, so maybe you can include the tor stuffs related to tsocks. Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora. 在2010-03-03?18:27:47，Enrico?Scholz?enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de?写道： Chen?Lei?supercy...@163.com?writes: ?BTW,?/var/lib/tor-data?seems?not?used?at?all,?maybe?this?directory ?should?not?be?included?in?tor-core? thx;?was?a?leftover?from?GeoIP?stuff?which?was?removed?due?to?anonymity reasons.??It?will?be?fixed?in?the?next?packages. Enrico --? 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:Re: tor dependency insanity.
Chen Lei wrote: Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora. Right, but actually tor should simply include the normal SysV-style initscripts (with initscripts dependencies, not lsb-core ones) inside the package itself. We have a packaging guideline for initscripts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Initscripts Currently, only SystemV-style initscripts are supported in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript This guideline MUST be followed. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote: The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well. ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while more pressing bugs required you to fix them. ok; sorry that I thought that you were/spoke for upstream. I met with them on numerous occasions (eg last at GSoC Mentor Summit where we toegether worked on fedora tor bugs and created numerous upstream' bug reports so I could file the below bugzilla report to you. upstream still has this as an open bug: http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=detailsid=1133 This does not seem to mean very much... The other bugs mentioned in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 are still open although some (all?) of them are objectively solved. WONTFIX: * Sun Dec 17 2006 Enrico Scholz enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de - 0.1.1.26-1 - do not turn on logging by default; it's easier to say we do not log anything to the police instead of enumerating the logged event classes and trying to explain that they do not contain any valuable information 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.. And: Output in %post violates Fedora Packaging guidelines 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. Also I filed: 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. I also don't see any ulimit support in tor.lsb required for running larger tor nodes. I haven't looked through the tor upstream bug tracker recently to see what other issues are there. But the fact that tor upstream is recommending not using fedora packages is bad for everyone, and that situation requires fixing. So yes, that bugzilla bug is still open and with valid reasons. 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
tor dependency insanity.
So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it out. I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other stuff unnecessary for routing network packets. What happened next has me lost for words. Our dependency chains suck. Dave (12:24:07:r...@firewall:~)# yum install tor Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package tor.i686 0:0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: tor-core = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 -- Running transaction check --- Package tor-core.i686 0:0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: fedora-usermgmt for package: tor-core-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: fedora-usermgmt for package: tor-core-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 --- Package tor-lsb.noarch 0:0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: lsb-core-noarch for package: tor-lsb-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.noarch -- Processing Dependency: lsb-core-noarch for package: tor-lsb-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.noarch -- Running transaction check --- Package fedora-usermgmt.noarch 0:0.10-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: fedora-usermgmt-core = 0.10-1200.fc12 for package: fedora-usermgmt-0.10-1200.fc12.noarch -- Processing Dependency: instance(fedora-usermgmt) for package: fedora-usermgmt-0.10-1200.fc12.noarch -- Processing Dependency: setup(fedora-usermgmt) for package: fedora-usermgmt-0.10-1200.fc12.noarch --- Package redhat-lsb.i686 0:3.2-7.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/at for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/lp for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtCore.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libICE.so.6 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtSql.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libcups.so.2 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/batch for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libasound.so.2 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/pax for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtOpenGL.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtSvg.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtNetwork.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/lpr for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/man for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/foomatic-rip for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libXi.so.6 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libqt-mt.so.3 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libatk-1.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtXml.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libQtGui.so.4 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libSM.so.6 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libcupsimage.so.2 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libGL.so.1 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libXt.so.6 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/msgfmt for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /bin/gettext for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: /usr/bin/gs for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libpango-1.0.so.0 for package: redhat-lsb-3.2-7.fc12.i686 -- Running transaction check --- Package alsa-lib.i686 0:1.0.22-2.fc12 set to be updated --- Package at.i686 0:3.1.10-40.fc12 set to be updated --- Package atk.i686 0:1.28.0-1.fc12 set to be updated --- Package cups.i686 1:1.4.2-20.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: libavahi-common.so.3 for package: 1:cups-1.4.2-20.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: portreserve for package: 1:cups-1.4.2-20.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: libavahi-client.so.3 for package: 1:cups-1.4.2-20.fc12.i686 -- Processing Dependency: poppler-utils
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it required is rather... lame. especially considering what it provides :( repoquery -ql tor-lsb /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor /var/run/tor -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it out. I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other stuff unnecessary for routing network packets. What happened next has me lost for words. Our dependency chains suck. Dave (12:24:07:r...@firewall:~)# yum install tor Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package tor.i686 0:0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: tor-core = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 (snip) Is it more confined if you just yum install tor-core? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:59:52PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
especially considering what it provides :(
repoquery -ql tor-lsb
/etc/rc.d/init.d/tor
/var/run/tor
Check out the post/preun scripts:
%post lsb
/usr/lib/lsb/install_initd %_initrddir/tor || {
cat EOF 2
oouch... redhat-lsb is still broken. See the report
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053
for details.
EOF
/sbin/chkconfig --add tor
}
%preun lsb
test $1 != 0 || %_initrddir/tor stop /dev/null || :
test $1 != 0 || /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd %_initrddir/tor
%postun lsb
test $1 = 0 || env -i %_initrddir/tor try-restart /dev/null
But /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd and /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd are symlinks
to chkconfig!!!
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services
Computing Information Technology
Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
y On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Malcolm wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it out. I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other stuff unnecessary for routing network packets. What happened next has me lost for words. Our dependency chains suck. Dave (12:24:07:r...@firewall:~)# yum install tor Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package tor.i686 0:0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: tor-core = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 (snip) Is it more confined if you just yum install tor-core? not much: tor-core requires init(tor) repoquery -q --whatprovides 'init(tor)' tor-lsb-0:0.2.1.22-1200.fc12.noarch tor-upstart-0:0.2.1.19-2.fc12.noarch tor-lsb-0:0.2.1.19-2.fc12.noarch tor-upstart-0:0.2.1.22-1200.fc12.noarch tor-lsb is probably going to be pulled in first. but if it isn't, then tor-upstart requires tor which is going to require tor-lsb. yes - that's never going to end well. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Le mardi 02 mars 2010 à 09:51 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit : On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it required is rather... lame. LSB is good for some stuff (like standard service scripts) what's not good is the way Fedora makes it an all or nothing. The script parts of lsb should be separated from the long list of synthetic deps. There's no reason they need to be in the same package. -- Nicolas Mailhot 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 dependency insanity.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:51:17AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it required is rather... lame. Why do we even bother supporting bullshit standards like LSB ? We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) Dave -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:51:17AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? LSB isn't really good for anything except landing a bunch of crap on your system that you don't really want there. Making it required is rather... lame. Why do we even bother supporting bullshit standards like LSB ? We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) It wouldn't be CRAZY to break out the lsb pkg like nim suggested into scripts + all the rest. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both bits in the headers? No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their services yet, but since when have people listened...) Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 13:25 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both bits in the headers? No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their services yet, but since when have people listened...) oh, yeah, that's right. we have SysV scripts with the LSB stuff in the headers. no need to depend on redhat-lsb for that, though, so far as I can figure? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both bits in the headers? No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their services yet, but since when have people listened...) Note that I've requested a lot of that stuff to go away multiple times. I even have support from upstream (CC:ed on the message) to bring sanity to the package. Upstream has started to tell people to ignore the fedora package and use their own supplied rpm :( Please do not drop this package from Fedora. I'd gladly help to make it compliant to the Fedora Guidelines, as I have done before, if Enricho does not want to do this. See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175799 Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said: I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both bits in the headers? No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their services yet, but since when have people listened...) oh, yeah, that's right. we have SysV scripts with the LSB stuff in the headers. no need to depend on redhat-lsb for that, though, so far as I can figure? If you use lsb-defined headers, no. If you use lsb-defined init script functions, yes. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? tor-lsb requires only lsb-core (which has a minimal set of dependencies), not whole lsb. Due to broken redhat-lsb packaging (there exist bugs filed aeons ago) lsb-core pulls in all the x11 stuff which is required by the complete lsb spec. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Dave Jones da...@redhat.com writes: (12:24:07:r...@firewall:~)# yum install tor fwiw; when you can not wait for a fixed redhat-lsb package, do | yum install tor tor-upstart Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. 'upstart' is packaged more sanily (atm) so I want to have and provide the option, to install only the required stuff. This is done by splitting out the core functionality and the ugly stuff (-lsb/-sysvinit) which is used by most (but not all) people. Enrico Footnotes: [1] rpm -qR initscripts -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 20:31 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. 'upstart' is packaged more sanily (atm) so I want to have and provide the option, to install only the required stuff. This is done by splitting out the core functionality and the ugly stuff (-lsb/-sysvinit) which is used by most (but not all) people. fair enough, I understand the situation more from your posts now. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On 03/02/2010 07:48 PM, Dave Jones wrote: The tor package is at least fixable. Over the dead body of the current package maintainer. That's the root of the problem. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Dave Jones da...@redhat.com writes: | yum install tor-core tor-upstart still no good, because tor-upstart requires tor which requires tor-lsb which... thx for noticing this; this requirement is broken and has been fixed now. I did not noticed it myself because I use yet another instance of 'init(tor)' on the tor server. Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Enrico Scholz (enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de) said: I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. Thanks for the bug report! Oh wait, you didn't. 'upstart' is packaged more sanily (atm) so I want to have and provide the option, to install only the required stuff. This is done by splitting out the core functionality and the ugly stuff (-lsb/-sysvinit) which is used by most (but not all) people. This is despite the fact that if you use upstart without the jobs provided in initscripts itself (which you're trying to avoid?) your service won't get started right anyway unless you write your own entirely separate startup sequence. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. Thanks for the bug report! Oh wait, you didn't. In any case, looking over the variety of dependencies in initscripts, I've removed a few: - syslog - this isn't *required*, as the system boots without it - mount (as it's provided by util-linux-ng) - popt (runtime library, should never have been listed) - e2fsprogs (anaconda will install the proper FS utilities for the root filesystem) So, the next release in rawhide will be better. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes: E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. Thanks for the bug report! Oh wait, you didn't. afair, I suggested this on June 1 2004 in the cabal #testabc channel ;) Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Bill Nottingham wrote: Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does not format a filesystem, does not configures network interfaces nor mounts something. Thanks for the bug report! Oh wait, you didn't. In any case, looking over the variety of dependencies in initscripts, I've removed a few: - syslog - this isn't *required*, as the system boots without it - mount (as it's provided by util-linux-ng) - popt (runtime library, should never have been listed) - e2fsprogs (anaconda will install the proper FS utilities for the root filesystem) I'm guessing e2fsprogs may have been sucked in due to the various tools it has (had) in its junkbox. Lots of those which are not ext2-specific (blkid for example) have been split out or moved to util-linux-ng. So thanks for dropping that :) I should probably go on a hunt for other misguided requirements on e2fsprogs these days. -Eric So, the next release in rawhide will be better. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: Enrico Scholz (enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de) said: All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does It does not log anything because Enrico broke logging in tor package. The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well. They know what's secure to log or not, and the tor package removes any logging, making server issues and diagnosis of problems much harder with no benefits whatsoever. 'upstart' is packaged more sanily (atm) so I want to have and provide the option, to install only the required stuff. This is done by splitting out the core functionality and the ugly stuff (-lsb/-sysvinit) which is used by most (but not all) people. This is despite the fact that if you use upstart without the jobs provided in initscripts itself (which you're trying to avoid?) your service won't get started right anyway unless you write your own entirely separate startup sequence. Also, the tor package has contained the next fedora's init system for many versions now, and it has never become the new standard. Obviously this packaging to be innovative for the future is not working out very well. As noted before, the issue here is the Enrico is packging his tor package, going against the desires of both Fedora guidelines and Tor upstream. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:21:55PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote: Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes: On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: -- Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package: tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686 This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/ by tor? tor-lsb requires only lsb-core (which has a minimal set of dependencies), not whole lsb. Due to broken redhat-lsb packaging (there exist bugs filed aeons ago) lsb-core pulls in all the x11 stuff which is required by the complete lsb spec. True: repoquery -q --whatprovides lsb-core-noarch redhat-lsb-0:3.2-7.fc12.i686 this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245494 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472633 The latter of these (really the same problem) claim to be fixed in rawhide. The question remains to which Fedora versions the fixed packaging will be backported. -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com www.dell.com/linux -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com writes: All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... although it does not log anything, does not extract/pack anything, does It does not log anything because Enrico broke logging in tor package. Not that this was the reason, but it is the upstream setup to have logging disabled. Your comment is unrelated to this discussion because logging can be done into a file and does not require syslog. The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well. ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging Enrico -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote: It does not log anything because Enrico broke logging in tor package. Not that this was the reason, but it is the upstream setup to have logging disabled. Your comment is unrelated to this discussion because logging can be done into a file and does not require syslog. The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well. ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while more pressing bugs required you to fix them. upstream still has this as an open bug: http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=detailsid=1133 Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Eric Sandeen wrote: Should be easy to fix (but too bad doing it that way results in such punishment!) As far as I can tell, the package is not compliant with our packaging guidelines (see the guidelines for initscripts) and as such can be fixed by any provenpackager. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Paul Wouters wrote: As noted before, the issue here is the Enrico is packging his tor package, going against the desires of both Fedora guidelines and Tor upstream. It's really that Enrico is inventing his own baroque packaging system for initscripts, with a bizarre mess of subpackages, when he should just follow our packaging guidelines for initscripts. His clamav packages are also weird like that. I don't see why his packages need to be different from all the others. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
Enrico Scholz wrote: Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually. Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native Upstarts scripts yet! We have packaging guidelines to follow for initscripts, please follow them. Requiring lsb-core, redhat-lsb or anything like that is NOT part of those guidelines! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: tor dependency insanity.
I think redhat-lsb should be forbideen strictly to be used in official fedora and rpmfusion package, it's can only be used by third-part sofiware develpers and packagers who do not familiar with fedora and want their packagers to support multiple linux platform. redhat-lsb is an encumbrance for normal rpm packages. BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory should not be included in tor-core? Regards, Chen 在2010-03-03?03:35:46，Dave?Jones?da...@redhat.com?写道： On?Tue,?Mar?02,?2010?at?08:23:22PM?+0100,?Enrico?Scholz?wrote: ??Enrico?Scholz?enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de?writes: ?? ???|?yum?install?tor?tor-upstart ?? ??should?be ?? ??|?yum?install?tor-core?tor-upstart still?no?good,?because?tor-upstart?requires?tor?which?requires?tor-lsb?which... Dave --? 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 dependency insanity.
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 20:31 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts anyway. All the initscripts have huge and broken dependency chains. E.g. assuming I would use the vanilla fedora 'initscripts' package, then tor would still require[1] syslog, cpio, e2fsprogs, ethtool, mount, ... You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a _huge_ difference between requiring mount and libX* ... the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed. -- James Antill - ja...@fedoraproject.org http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27 http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
