bz532373, was Re: tor dependency insanity.
enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
Thu Mar 4 11:41:05 UTC 2010
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tracker are outdated too.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  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.
More information about the devel