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
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
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!!!
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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/
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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:
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
