Bug#657678: ITP: simplelxc -- Minimalist package to create LXC guests and then manage them simply.
Hi Daniel; I have some more questions below. I'm sorry about long posts. lxc-debconf is not included in upstream. Is there anywhere other than source lxc package to investigate/participate/generate patches about lxc-debconf. On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 19:53, Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote: ... that's not a problem either; we can have debconf priority automatically set to critical and frontend to non-interactive based on e.g. the invokation name; such as 'lxc-create -t debian-simple'. if you insist, this can even be a shortcut be in /usr/bin for that. ... * Simplelxc access to and controls continer's hostname, ipaddress and continer ssh authorized key when needed. (info, list, create and copy) i think that's wrong; users should use lxc-console, or configure openssh themselfs. it should not be the job of any lxc container creation script to /configure/ services. Actually in my opinion many of these are shouldn't be done by lxc. But a wrapper like simplelxc is much more suitible for this. why? simplelxc is trying to isolate users from any kind of problems which prevents them to use it, using ssh with a key makes it easy to login to a continer without thinking about what the user/pass is, I thought that it should be easy to get in to the container and run some command in it if needed which lxc-console can't do but ssh can, for example restarting sshd from host system. But this is not that important, lxc-consle should be enough. You have a point about configuring services, but existing lxc creation script in both upstream and Debian package is also doing similar things. Seems like simplelxc adds only an ssh-key in addition. lxc-debconf configures sources list, locales, networking, hostname, tzdata, rootpw, nameserver on creation. But why not update these on cloning or why not show some handy parameters in lxc info of lxc list. Or will I need to write my own scripts to collect this kind of information? If so, in this manner we should write a helper program to manage creation and management of containers along with some core services in it. Instead of going on with simplelxc, maybe I can help lxc upstream/package for creation process and I should write a kind of helper tool for other needs if they are still needed. What do you think about this? And also there is an other similar package lxctl, which you are also the maintainer of, leads me the way simplelxc is going. In my opinion simplelxc seems like a light and user friendly version of lxctl which targets pc users rather than servers. My intention is not to replace lxc creation and mangement utils in lxc package but when I've started to develop simplelxc idea but that's basically what you're proposing. Do you think same for lxctl? there are so called lxc templates (the scripts that setup a container, for debian, using debootstrap). the one in debian, named lxc-debconf and accessible through 'lxc-create -t debian' or 'lxc-create -t progress' is rather sophisticated. it allows to completely non-interactively create containers with a preseed file, or asking all questions to the user through debconf at the same time if he uses to make use of that. to make lxc-debconf behave exactely like simplelxc, there are only a handful of lines required, and you get all the rest that it /can/ do and what it does best for free. rather than making use of that, and extending lxc-debconf, you need to replicate and maintain all the basics of creating a debian based container from scratch. or, to put it arrogantly over exagerating: it's not a good idea to try to rewrite lxc-debconf just because you don't like one default in it's option. This is a bit harsh, but, yes :) I can say that this is halfly true with one note: Rather I don't like it it is I coldn't trust it. I'm not saying this to disturb you but lxc-debian changed a lot in last few months and I didn't understand the main purpose of the tool and there is a need for a more stable and working solution. I should talk with you and upstream before developing simplelxc. But as many tech guys, I am also a bit asocial to prefer communication instead of creating a new project. (This can be my main excuse and mistake :) The right place to ask this question is the upstream but you are the maintainer also, I think you have an idea (and I'm still asocial). Which of these is true for lxc upstream? * only the userspace part of lxc in kernel, or * userspace part AND core management tools, or * userspace part AND management tools to manage the lxc containers in the host. management in the meaning of managing containers along with the core services on it, like networking, name resolution. regarding maintainability: lxc-debconf is quite mature as it's tested in many, many use cases. i had a look at your creation method, and i must say it's inherently insecure, even the most basic things are missing to prevent taking over the host system from within the
Bug#657678: ITP: simplelxc -- Minimalist package to create LXC guests and then manage them simply.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:15, Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote: On 01/27/2012 11:15 PM, Bekir Dogan wrote: Main objective is to make testing of any program easy on personal computers (for now it works only for Debian systems) without losing time for these: * does not require to manually configure networking on host system, * does not require to manually create template, * does not require to manually determining IP addresses, * does not require to manually configuring any other parameters needed. Just install simplelxc, create a guest and go. i would rather much prefere if those little bits would be incorporated into lxc-debconf in lxc itself. there's only minimal effort needed, as lxc-debconf already determines all the defaults anyway and just needs the one or other update to determine them better. Thanks for you sugestion. Simplelxc have conventions to ensure simplicity: * Simplelxc creates a container even if no parameter is given and asks nothing, this is to help users who are not interested in what the system is. * Simplelxc hardly asks something. If needed parameters not given just do the defaults else only show help and stop. * No advanced configuration or cli parameters to avoid confusion of users. * Simplelxc supports only one kind of networking (veth), preconfigures both host system and containers (not very good yet) and assumes the user will not change the configuration. * Network architecture is nat based (because some wireless/ethernet drivers does not support to be added to a bridge) and ip addresses of new containers mainly managed automatically * Simplelxc access to and controls continer's hostname, ipaddress and continer ssh authorized key when needed. (info, list, create and copy) Actually in my opinion many of these are shouldn't be done by lxc. But a wrapper like simplelxc is much more suitible for this. My intention is not to replace lxc creation and mangement utils in lxc package but when I've started to develop simplelxc idea, there is no lxc wrapper (/usr/bin/lxc) around and writing 'lxc-start -d -n test' irritates me. After your mail I thought that, maybe I could use included lxc-debconf script with a preseed file (which I've never tested before) for container creation backend. This way I also can help debian lxc package by recommending various solutions as an active user or may be I can send patches. But at first I was not sure about lxc-debconf development speed, it does not coming from upstream and seems like changing very fast and I didn't want to update my package that often. On the other side, here are my thoughts about lxc-debconf, and these are my main motivation to crate a new package. Many people around me tested lxc with lxc-debian script shipped with debian lxc package but you need to give full path, so users must call something like sudo /usr/lib/lxc/templates/lxc-debian -p /var/lib/lxc/test. This looks like an advanced operation that generally fails for me. (I'm sorry for not reporting bugs, I will try to be more participant as of now) Then it asks confusing questions like preseed file, distribution, archives, mirrors, archive areas for many users who are not familiar with debian. But many users just want to get a running container don't want to know which dist ribution they are using or not interested in using mirrors. I've implented simplelxc with a lot of conventions to prevent this, but in lxc package's case it doesn't looks right to have this kind of conventions because it is the main infrastructure package to support many scenarios. The way lxc-debconf script chosen is not very easy and understandable for many users who are not familiar with debian and debconf. And also generally the first act of users who encounter to the blue screen asking for a preseed file is pressing Ctrl-c which is not working with debconf. These are only my thoughts, and I am curious about yours? bekir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CADJ2DM+s-arqxv=-dr+mb1qp2+vm1s5yp0plvpgwdskd5e+...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657678: ITP: simplelxc -- Minimalist package to create LXC guests and then manage them simply.
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Bekir Dogan beki...@gmail.com * Package name: simplelxc Version : 0.1 Upstream Author : Bekir Dogan beki...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/bergerx/simplelxc#readme * License : GPL Programming Lang: Shell script Description : Minimalist package to create LXC guests and then manage them simply. Main objective is to make testing of any program easy on personal computers (for now it works only for Debian systems) without losing time for these: * does not require to manually configure networking on host system, * does not require to manually create template, * does not require to manually determining IP addresses, * does not require to manually configuring any other parameters needed. Just install simplelxc, create a guest and go. Main purpose of this project is to handle only simple tasks, so if you want to manage production lxc installation, you should consider using plain lxc userspace control tool (http://lxc.sourceforge.net/) or projects like lxctl (http://lxc.tl/). Bekir Dogan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120127221515.18305.48611.report...@hede.bdgn.net
Bug#487557: [pkg-php-pear] RFP: php-spreadsheet-excel-writer -- PEAR package for generating Excel spreadsheet.
Hi; On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:30, Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote: ... (cropped) ... On the RFS, it is mentioned the package is under LGPL. I also had a look at the source code, and indeed, it's really released under LGPL (there's the license header on each files). So I don't think there's any licensing issue here. Licensing issues may be related to OLE, the dependent pear package which is also not packed in Debian also. I don't have any idea about PHP license and DFSG compliance. ... (cropped) ... The fact that it's written beta doesn't mater. What maters is if the upstream code is well maintained or not. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. There has been no release since 2009, and there's 57 open bugs. Having open bugs isn't an issue in itself, but having zero reply from upstream in these bug reports *IS VERY* problematic. On top of that, we are dealing here with some undocumented output (there's no specification for the Excel format). I haven't looked all those problem reports in pear bug tracking system, the package seems like have not been maintaining for a long time. So, if I was you, I would first try to ping upstream author about these issues, see if he replies, and ask why these bug reports received no care at all in a so long time. If these aren't addressed, then I don't think it's reasonable to package this PEAR module in Debian. ... (cropped) ... Do you think you'll have also the ability to maintain upstream source code as well? If so, then there's no problem having this package in Debian once all the bugs in the pear.php.net website have at least been answered. I don't have Windows in my home nor job and I don't think I can maintain the upstream or I have enough motivation to test and resolve many Windows (Excel) related issues. Thank you for your detailed reply, it is an educational reply for me about Debian approach to making packages. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cadj2dmlejfanjsw+jqkfthtgfs9m3v84wgdvpz71by0g5v6...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#487557: RFP: php-spreadsheet-excel-writer -- PEAR package for generating Excel spreadsheet.
Hi; We rarely use pear install in our company although we have many different php and pear projects. Last month I was looking for Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer (and its OLE dependency) pear package and can't find it. I thought Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer is not a so rarely used package; and there must be a reason for the lack of this package. Looked for its package in packages.d.o then wnpp requests and found it has an RFP bug (#487557), it was stuck because of some licence issues in the past (Nov 2009). Is the mentioned problem still exists? And Spreadsheet_Excel_Writer package is still beta but I found other beta pear packages like php-html-safe, php-net-dime, php-soap, php-text-captcha, php-xajax, php-xml-serializer, so it should not be the reason. I am also wondering if there is a general policy about pear packages like we don't encourage making seperate debian packages for every single pear package. Else I might be the maintainer for this kind of packages. bekir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2017224504.ga29...@hede.bdgn.net
Bug#639315: pypy had a package but removed due to #538858
I've been looking for pypy package and found that pypy has a package in the past: http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/pypy.html Then pypy package has been removed due to this bug, filed by last maintainer of the package: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=538858 From that bug report: Please remove the 'pypy' package. One day we can look at packaging this again, but it's not helpful to Debian in its current state - it is too premature to have in unstable and has some issues that would be difficult to fix. Development is also difficult due to the long build times and buildd specifications required. It has a very low popcon - anyone with a non-trivial interest in this project would be using upstream's HEAD anyway. -- Bekir Dogan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111029061754.ga26...@hede.bdgn.net
Bug#613016: dbunit package is not needed
This bug is unnecessary because phpunit package includes dbunit. We should close this bug. -- Bekir Dogan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CADJ2DM+AKAJihThBbbe_P+Agr1j7OTfJr7QEPNa_RbdJd1xO=a...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#605101: RFP: xsync -- distributed asynchronous file replication system
Hi; We should close this bug due to the Project postponed. message in applications main page. I didn't close the bug myself because I'm new in Debian BTS. -- Bekir Dogan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111023230819.ga14...@hede.bdgn.net
Bug#646124: RFP: activemq -- Fast Message Bus which supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols while fully supporting JMS
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist I have recognised taht some sysadmin installing something into /opt again, inspected a little and found taht she is installing activemq which is quite populer nowadays. * Package name: activemq Version : 5.5.0 Upstream Author : Apache ActiveMQ Community d...@activemq.apache.org * URL : http://activemq.apache.org/ * License : Apache 2.0 License Programming Lang: Java, C++, C, ... Description : Fast Message Bus which supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols while fully supporting JMS Apache ActiveMQ is a fast Message Bus which supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. I have found some guys have made debian package: * https://github.com/melexis/activemq-debian by Brecht Hoflack brh@unknown, seems like a suitible package requires some retouch about policy. Seems like he is thinking about opening a ITP, the DEBIAN/chagelog file inearly ready but there is not an ITP bug number in it. * https://gitorious.org/gitorious-for-debian/activemq by Marius Mårnes Mathiesen marius.mathiesen @gmail.com Seems like packed for himself. Bekir Dogan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111021142821.12905.68632.report...@hede.bdgn.net
Bug#645683: ITP: xul-ext-imkbizle -- Parses 3. party web sites to retrieve IMKB100 stock data
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Erhan Kesken er...@kesken.org * Package name: xul-ext-imkbizle Version : 2.4 Upstream Author : Erhan Kesken er...@kesken.org * URL : http://code.google.com/p/imkbizle/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/imkbizle/ * License : GPL3 Programming Lang: XUL Javascript Description : Parses 3. party web sites to retrieve IMKB100 stock data Shows latest Istanbul Stock Exchange XU100 (IMKB100) values of selected stock on iceweasel statusbar and shows detailed statistics on tool tip text. -- /ekesken -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111017192456.15368.21470.report...@hede.bdgn.net
