bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Enrico Scholz]

Paul Wouters <paul at 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 http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=1133
> which is the upstream bug tracker, 

That's the wrong place to report Fedora issues. Information in this
tracker are outdated too.


> and I told you those bugs were filed in a joined session with 5
> tor developers at GSoC. 

When you have such insider contacts, why are you communicating in such a
perfidious way ("I understand your logging reasons" in [1] vs. your
offenses in this thread) instead of using your contacts to close the
bugs in the other bugtracker?


> No. your %post may not output anything. 

%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.


> It's a bug in tor. You're just pissing over the endusers with your
> fight over init systems.  If you cared about the users of the tor
> package, you would work around 

I workaround the redhat-lsb bug.



Enrico

Footnotes: 
[1]  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373#c8