Re: [Bug 313960] Re: Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46
Hello Thierry and Team, Thanks for taking a little more time to explain. Nonetheless, perhaps the most important point is still missing from your answer. Please see below. Le dimanche 18 janvier 2009 à 17:28 +, Thierry Carrez a écrit : It makes it look like Ubuntu LTS is not even striving for production-ready status and that this claim as well as that of Long Term is but a slogan. You seem to imply that quality and production-ready standards imply providing updates that add functionality to an already released product. Well, definitely not, please read on. That is really not the case. Agreed. The idea is rather to try to fix existing bugs while ensuring the largest stability for the current users of the stable release. Introducing, for human consideration Part of Ubuntu's motto. ;-) , new functionality into a stable release is wrong: you face the risk of a regression which is the part of my former posts you seem to insist on missing. I may indeed not be aware of such a regression, but : - there is no report of this alleged regression, wherever. - Ubuntu packagers would know, if I'm correct, since packages for dnsmasq 2.46 were built for both Intrepid and Jaunty, and the maintainers also patched the Hardy version as soon as a security flaw was discovered. So why not give the actual technical reason? Please do. (even if very unlikely) for the majority of users to please a minority of them. I fail to understand what minority you are referring to. Provided that a post would represent a number of users (on top of the poster himself), please add up the many posts I mentioned before and do the math ; while this may not be the majority, we are definitely not talking about just a few. Trying to make such a point also misses on the issue of the targeted audience. Some customers will simply not use Bind, or any other easier DNS server than dnsmasq. Hence, there is probably no such thing as a general DNS server users' target audience, and figures should be evaluated accordingly. As a real-world example, we actually had to switch two production servers to Slackware because the site manager would more easily trust both the security advisories he can find on the web and their need for CNAME functionality than the package we backported (sadly); following this (and other issues) , we have ceased to recommend Hardy as a solution for security-conscious sites that cannot dedicate more resources to IT management; although setting up the Slackware model server was some task, it has already proved not to lead to such dead ends, thus allowing us to revert our remote maintenance time budget to normal. Please note that this had quite an impact in terms of Ubuntu's image for most of this company's employees. That's what upgrading is for : getting new functionality and bleeding-edge releases of software. In upgrading to a _stable_ release? If recent was the word, we'd be using Intrepid or Jaunty, and not the self proclaimed production server that came out before we started our projects. We would not use the production-ready-LTS argument on our customers either. Also, referring to _new_ functionality here feels odd ; CNAMEs may be new to dnsmasq (making the product indeed ready for adoption in different environments), they are not to DNS. Once again, we are not discussing just some gizmo, but essential DNS functionality, no matter how recently it may have been introduced in dnsmasq. We do understand the _fear_ of regression due to this function's novelty _in_dnsqmasq_, but again there have been no reports of such a regression, no matter where we look. RHEL for example apparently still ships dnsmasq-2.39... Slackware, ArchLinux, Debian's Lenny (currently frozen) and OpenSuse to name just a few all ship 2.46, which is even available in the commercial version of the latter. Besides, the comparison with RHEL seems inappropriate, since it is a commercial product, and neither ourselves or our customers are part of their partners ; it seems that companies like Ubuntu claim to offer the same quality (a production-ready server OS) for free. That said we understand the need to provide new functionality for users of the stable release and that's what the Backports project proposes. And we all have yet to receive an answer from them... and by now it would seem that more time was spent on either end discussing whether the update is worthwhile than would be required to at least build the package, if not test its integration within hardy for this hypothetical (AFAIK) regression. Finally, our operations are now fine here, some without Ubuntu, some with our own backport, but we are still expecting a technical, fact-based explanation to marking this bug as invalid. Your next answer will help in determining whether it is still worthwhile looking into Ubuntu's evolutions and support or if we should build up on different solutions. Thanks again for your time, Best regards, Dr. Moe --
Re: [Bug 313960] Re: Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46
Hello Mathias and Team, After carefully reading the page you mention, I still fail to understand why dnsmasq 2.46 should not make its way to Hardy LTS at all. Since : - It IS also a security upgrade (should be raised above hardy's current version according to upstream's site). - No regression was introduced, as other distros have acknowledged, as your competitors' package listings show. The only 'valid' reason mentioned on this policy page would be : bugs that (a) are Fix Released in the current development release and (b) have been nominated but not approved for stable releases... although it remains unclear what exact policy applies in these cases. Moreover, this update would seem to qualify as a MicroException, in Ubuntu's own terms, provided the packagers actually can communicate with one another, which seems to be very much the case. All in all, what a disappointing answer! Not even a remote chance, either now or later! It makes it look like Ubuntu LTS is not even striving for production-ready status and that this claim as well as that of Long Term is but a slogan. Moreover, such a brisk invalidation of an otherwise valid report without even bothering to examine or answer the other arguments we gave regarding the benefits this update could bring to Ubuntu gives your company a bad name. Not to mention referring us to your policy page, since software quality and marketing have little to do with one another. It had been a hard time convincing several of our customers to switch to Ubuntu, and there will be no way for me or anyone else to talk them into accepting quick and dirty handmade non-supported backports like the one I made for this daemon and am currently using. Alas, the management's conclusions will likely highly resemble mine above: not production-ready, not an LTS release but for the name. (Please note this is not the first issue of this kind we've come across, only the first one reported, and that it used to seem - from testing previous releases since the not-production-ready-either dapper drake - that Ubuntu's maintainers were among the most reactive). Still hoping at the very least for an officially supported backport... And at best for more sensible consideration, i.e. a detailed answer to the reasons we formerly gave for this request, which ideally would match Ubuntu's claims to quality. Meanwhile (if so) I remain terribly sorry for this lack of concern towards quality and human consideration. Regards, Dr. Moe In a democratic community, nagging may seem an appropriate response to contempt. Rvd. J. Barley Le mardi 06 janvier 2009 à 15:44 +, Mathias Gug a écrit : On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:45:38PM -, dr.moe wrote: _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the regular LTS repos ? So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be considered at all (there may be something I missed here...) I don't think so. Criteria for making Stable Release Updates are outlined on the following wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Hi Thierry, Thanks for forwarding. Looking forward to the backporters' response. _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the regular LTS repos ? I must stress again that this would be an important improvement for LTS. To summarize: - if any dnsmasq user wants / needs to use a cname directive, v2.46 is required. - the question was asked several times in the past in every ubuntu forum whose language I can read (many times, that is...) - beginners won't backport - more experienced users may find it a waste of time to backport, and their work may not benefit to the community (I just backported, clumsily, and would not submit this work for anybody else's use unless someone officially in charge would take the time to validate / improve this backport). - anyone not directly involved in Ubuntu will not want to backport every single daemon in order to stick to the LTS release (I have backported 3 different servers last month, and this is not my idea of a Xmas holiday ;-). - LBNL who'd want the hassle of installing and configuring bind solely in order to declare a CNAME (or any number of them)? (or any other DNS server 4 that matter...) I probably should not have mentioned the backports repo in my previous message ; getting v2.46 there would surely be better than not at all on Hardy, _nonetheless_ the whole point should be to give _regular_ Hardy a simple DNS server with every function anyone would expect which works _out_of_the_box. So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be considered at all (there may be something I missed here...) Regards, Dr. Moe Redirecting to hardy-backports... Please see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports for more information on the backport process. ** Also affects: hardy-backports
Re: [Bug 313960] Re: Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46
Hi Thierry, Thanks for forwarding. Looking forward to the backporters' response. _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the regular LTS repos ? I must stress again that this would be an important improvement for LTS. To summarize: - if any dnsmasq user wants / needs to use a cname directive, v2.46 is required. - the question was asked several times in the past in every ubuntu forum whose language I can read (many times, that is...) - beginners won't backport - more experienced users may find it a waste of time to backport, and their work may not benefit to the community (I just backported, clumsily, and would not submit this work for anybody else's use unless someone officially in charge would take the time to validate / improve this backport). - anyone not directly involved in Ubuntu will not want to backport every single daemon in order to stick to the LTS release (I have backported 3 different servers last month, and this is not my idea of a Xmas holiday ;-). - LBNL who'd want the hassle of installing and configuring bind solely in order to declare a CNAME (or any number of them)? (or any other DNS server 4 that matter...) I probably should not have mentioned the backports repo in my previous message ; getting v2.46 there would surely be better than not at all on Hardy, _nonetheless_ the whole point should be to give _regular_ Hardy a simple DNS server with every function anyone would expect which works _out_of_the_box. So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be considered at all (there may be something I missed here...) Regards, Dr. Moe Le lundi 05 janvier 2009 à 19:37 +, Thierry Carrez a écrit : Redirecting to hardy-backports... Please see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports for more information on the backport process. ** Also affects: hardy-backports Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: New = Invalid -- Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/313960 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
