1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
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>
|
