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
Kevin Kofler 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
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Kevin Kofler 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
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*
Kevin Kofler writes:
>> %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!!!
that's why it executes a workar
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
Paul Wouters 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.n
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 ht
On 03/04/2010 01:42 AM, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>
> its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053),
> not tor
>
Why do you have a dependency on redhat-lsb ?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/de
Paul Wouters 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 so
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 disab
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; sor
12 matches
Mail list logo
