diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-January/010971.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-January/010971.html | 245 |
1 files changed, 245 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-January/010971.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-January/010971.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e6ee0a611 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-January/010971.html @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2 + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20%5Bchangelog%5D%20%5BRPM%5D%20cauldron%20core/release%0A%09dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2&In-Reply-To=%3C4F04DB2C.50106%40mageia.org%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="010970.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="010999.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2</H1> + <B>Anssi Hannula</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20%5Bchangelog%5D%20%5BRPM%5D%20cauldron%20core/release%0A%09dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2&In-Reply-To=%3C4F04DB2C.50106%40mageia.org%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2">anssi at mageia.org + </A><BR> + <I>Thu Jan 5 00:05:16 CET 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010970.html">[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="010999.html">[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#10971">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#10971">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#10971">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#10971">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>On 05.01.2012 00:16, Michael Scherer wrote: +><i> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 20:09 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit : +</I>>><i> On 04.01.2012 19:29, Michael Scherer wrote: +</I>>>><i> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 16:16 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit : +</I>>>>><i> On 04.01.2012 11:54, Michael Scherer wrote: +</I>>>>>><i> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 11:03 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit : +</I>>>>>>><i> Anssi Hannula skrev 3.1.2012 23:05: +</I>>>>>>>><i> On 02.01.2012 12:21, guillomovitch wrote: +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Name : dsniff Relocations: (not relocatable) +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Version : 2.4 Vendor: Mageia.Org +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Release : 0.b1.1.mga2 Build Date: Mon Jan 2 11:18:17 2012 +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: ecosse +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Group : Monitoring Source RPM: (none) +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Size : 210074 License: BSD +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Signature : (none) +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Packager : guillomovitch<guillomovitch> +</I>>>>>>>>><i> URL : <A HREF="http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/">http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/</A> +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Summary : Network audit tools +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Description : +</I>>>>>>>>><i> Tools to audit network and to demonstrate the insecurity of cleartext +</I>>>>>>>>><i> network protocols. Please do not abuse this software. +</I>>>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>>>><i> guillomovitch<guillomovitch> 2.4-0.b1.1.mga2: +</I>>>>>>>>><i> + Revision: 189630 +</I>>>>>>>>><i> - drop epoch, we don't care about updating from mdv anymore +</I>>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>>><i> We don't? +</I>>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>><i> Oh yes we do. Atleast from 2010.1 +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> We did for 1, not for 2 or cauldron or anything else. So as long the +</I>>>>>><i> package is not pushed on 1, I think we agreed that people could not care +</I>>>>>><i> about upgrade path from Mandriva. +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> Well, I don't like that, IMO we should not remove upgradeability so +</I>>>>><i> soon, even if we won't officially support it. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> Well, if we do not officially support it, then we do not support it, +</I>>>><i> that's all. There is no "that's unofficially supported" or stuff like +</I>>>><i> that. Supported mean "we will do test and fix bug if they happen", and +</I>>>><i> not supported mean "we reserve our right to not do anything". +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> And that's exactly what happen right now. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> IMO there is a level between "officially supported" and "we +</I>>><i> intentionally break it", which means that we advise against it but do +</I>>><i> not hinder people from doing it. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Yes, there is different levels of support, obviously, since people have +</I>><i> different but that doesn't mean we should rely on them, or try to +</I>><i> officially use them. Again, saying "we support that, so we do that, and +</I>><i> we don't support this, so people are free to do what they want" is +</I>><i> simpler. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> The whole scheme of having "stuff we do", "stuff we do not promise but +</I>><i> try to", "stuff we do not promise and we do not try to" ( or more ) make +</I>><i> things less clear for everybody. Having a non uniform policy will make +</I>><i> things harder for newer packagers ( and for olders too ). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> We have users ( in the past ) that complained about the lack of +</I>><i> reliability of packages on Mandriva. And this was IMHO because we had a +</I>><i> policy of 'we keep everything and we say they are in a section of "maybe +</I>><i> supported"'. The whole message "contribs is not supported but main is" +</I>><i> was simple and yet, too complex to grasp ( because people didn't check +</I>><i> contrib/main before installing anything, ) +</I> +It was not too complex, just badly implemented. The users got *no* +in-GUI notification at all that contrib was unsupported (most users +don't read wiki pages etc, especially if we don't link them to them). + +><i> . It was also far from the +</I>><i> truth because some stuff in contribs were more supported than stuff in +</I>><i> main, and thus we were sending mixed messages. +</I> +Right. + +><i> So we should really stick on what we support, and send a simple, clear +</I>><i> and correct message. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> And I think we need to keep things simple to solve such issues in the +</I>><i> long run. +</I> +I'm not advocating any change on the message sent to users, just to not +break upgrade intentionally (by removing near-zero-maintentance upgrade +support by dropping obsoletes/epochs that are needed for upgrade from +the several last distribution versions). + +>>>><i> But anyway, this affects people doing 2010.1->mga1->mga2 as well... Or +</I>>>>><i> are you saying that isn't supported either, and people should do new +</I>>>>><i> installs?? +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> We do not support upgrading mdv2010.1 rpms with rpm from mga2, so if a +</I>>>><i> maintainer want to remove this, he can. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> Someone doing mdv2010.1->mga1 will end with a mix of mdv2010.1 and mga1 +</I>>>><i> if the system is not cleaned, and that's not something we should +</I>>>><i> support, not more than mga X + any random repository upgrade to mga X+1 +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> IE, that's not mga1 -> mga2, that's mga1 + 3rd party repo that happened +</I>>>><i> to work by chance to mga2. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> I have to strongly disagree with this. If upgrading from 2010.1 to mga1 +</I>>><i> is officially supported (and it is), we can't say "you can't upgrade +</I>>><i> your mga1 system to mga2 anymore because you have some old pkgs +</I>>><i> installed which we never asked you to remove" (assuming no non-mdv 3rd +</I>>><i> party repos here). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> First, it doesn't break the whole upgrade. +</I>><i> In fact, if we look carefully, people who were running non supported +</I>><i> software ( ie a package from Mandriva ) will still run the same +</I>><i> unsupported software and the same binary. And upgrade will likely work +</I>><i> without error messages. Because nothing requires dsniff, except its own +</I>><i> subpackage. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Secondly, it didn't matter much before Guillaume uploaded dsniff. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> 1 week ago, anyone who would have upgraded to mga2 with dsniff installed +</I>><i> from mdv would have been in the exact same situation than now, except +</I>><i> nobody cared at all. And the proof that nobody cared is that nobody +</I>><i> pushed the rpm sooner. Would it have been pushed to 1, yes, that would +</I>><i> have breached what we agreed to do. But it was not pushed to 1 ( and I +</I>><i> would say "likely on purpose" ). So the only change with this upload is +</I>><i> for people installing dsniff later. +</I> +I care. I also still have dozens of missing mdv packages in my TODO that +I intend to import to cauldron and mga1. dsniff was one of those, though +I'm not sure yet if I care enough about it to request it to submitted to +mga1 updates, since I don't use it on my mga1 systems (only on cauldron). + +><i> 3rd point, the whole point of saying "we do not support this" is not to +</I>><i> say "we don't support, but we should still support it to some extent". +</I>><i> It is to be able to say "we do not support, so the maintainer can clean +</I>><i> it if he want". You are free to support it if you wish, but Guillaume is +</I>><i> also free to not support it, and choose to clean instead ( because epoch +</I>><i> tags are ugly ). +</I> +I completely agree. However, I consider this to break MGA1->MGA2 +upgrade, which *is* supported. + +><i> If we wanted to support upgrading from mdv 2010.1/2 to mga2, or +</I>><i> upgrading people who mix distribution packages ( be it because they do +</I>><i> not know, or on purpose, that's the same problem from a technical PoV ), +</I>><i> it should have been said much sooner. +</I> +I'm fine with us not supporting 2010.1->mga2. However, I'm not fine with +breaking 2010.1->mga1->mga2. + +And saying "it didn't completely break" while user has in his mga2 +installation old packages is IMO not an option. + +If it was intended that 2010.1->mga1 system wouldn't be completely +upgradable (all packages) to mga2, we should've made it clear when we +offered the mdv2010.1 -> mga1 upgrade path. But we didn't, so we should +completely support 2010.1->mga1->mga2 (with which I agree with). + +><i> I do not understand, could people tell me what did they understood we +</I>><i> would do when we said "we will not support upgrade this after mageia +</I>><i> 1" ? +</I> +I understood it as 2010.1->mga2 would not necessarily work, but +2010.1->mga1->mga2 would still work fine, without old packages left, +except for those for which no new versions exist in the distribution. + +-- +Anssi Hannula +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010970.html">[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="010999.html">[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#10971">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#10971">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#10971">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#10971">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |