[aur-general] wtf? tcp_wrappers back in [community]?
Sergej, We spent a week rebuilding packages to get tcp_wrappers out of [core] and out of the repos. Now I see that you've moved it back into [community]. What the hell? Were you going to start recompiling packages against tcp_wrappers and adding it back as a dep? Not acceptable. We all made this decision as a team, so I'm not sure why you're trying to fight us. I'm db-remove'ing this (again) and putting it back where it belongs. Regards, Dave
Dave, we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24 votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers. I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers. At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:59:40 -0400, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
Sergej,
We spent a week rebuilding packages to get tcp_wrappers out of [core] and out of the repos. Now I see that you've moved it back into [community]. What the hell? Were you going to start recompiling packages against tcp_wrappers and adding it back as a dep? Not acceptable. We all made this decision as a team, so I'm not sure why you're trying to fight us.
I'm db-remove'ing this (again) and putting it back where it belongs.
Regards, Dave
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Sergej Pupykin <ml@sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24 votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
I'm sure that whoever wants to use tcp_wrappers, and therefore is willing to recompile all the services that support it on every update, won't mind building one more package. I'd say we keep it out of the binary repos. :)
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:05:01PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
Dave,
we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24 votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.
There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken. We decided to remove tcp_wrappers. -1 to moving it back to [community].
On 09/01/2011 07:52 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:05:01PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
Dave,
we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24 votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers.
There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.
dude wtf, don't give him ideas!
We decided to remove tcp_wrappers. -1 to moving it back to [community].
-- Ionuț
On 1 September 2011 17:05, Sergej Pupykin <ml@sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
Dave,
we should not recompile anything. But it is usefull package with 24 votes which has many dependencies in AUR. It is just a way to make things easier for guys who want to use tcp_wrappers.
I assume all developers build packages in chroots and it should not break anything even if some developer occasionaly install tcp_wrappers. And tomorrow we'll get some Feature Request with the title "Build X with tcp_wrappers support" - Just add it to depends array.
-1. Bring it to AUR! -- Andrea
On 02.09.2011 00:48, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
And tomorrow we'll get some Feature Request with the title "Build X with tcp_wrappers support" - Just add it to depends array.
Sure. I moved it to community with 24 votes. Return it back with resetting vote counter to zero. Now it has 55 votes. Flashmob? :)
At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:52:42 +0200, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.
Btw, cairo-xcb is _broken_. I did not search for tcp_wrappers issues globally, but I did not understand from http://www.archlinux.org/news/dropping-tcp_wrappers-support/ what is exact issue with tcp_wrappers.
Le Vendredi 2 Septembre 2011 12:56:28, Sergej Pupykin a écrit :
At Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:52:42 +0200,
Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
There are packages that we don't want in the binary repos, even if they have a lot of votes. awesome [1] is another good example. It has almost 400 votes but uses cairo-xcb which is broken.
Btw, cairo-xcb is _broken_. I did not search for tcp_wrappers issues globally, but I did not understand from http://www.archlinux.org/news/dropping-tcp_wrappers-support/ what is exact issue with tcp_wrappers.
At Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:22:02 +0200, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not issue. This is rather controversial philosophy/architecture questions and care about home users (If they forget that libwrap does not cover all network applications). As I understand tcp_wrappers still works fine despite of 14+ years old release.
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:04:04PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:22:02 +0200, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not issue. This is rather controversial philosophy/architecture questions and care about home users (If they forget that libwrap does not cover all network applications).
As I understand tcp_wrappers still works fine despite of 14+ years old release.
No, that's exactly the issue. We decided, after bringing up the idea for the third time [1] that tcp_wrappers needs to go. There was plenty of support and _zero_ opposition to this decision, so we went ahead with it. d [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-July/020931.html
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:04:04PM +0400, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:22:02 +0200, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not issue. This is rather controversial philosophy/architecture questions and care about home users (If they forget that libwrap does not cover all network applications).
As I understand tcp_wrappers still works fine despite of 14+ years old release.
Remember our philosophy... If there's a package in our repositories that needs tons of patches and isn't developed upstream anymore, we should always look for alternatives. "Broken" doesn't necessarily mean that stuff stops working.
participants (7)
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Dave Reisner
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Ionut Biru
-
Laurent Carlier
-
Lukas Fleischer
-
Sergej Pupykin