[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Sep 21 10:32:10 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433





------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org  2006-09-21 06:31 EST -------
> Reviewers want the one-package structure but do not give a single
> argument why this should be done or why multiple packages are bad.

Sure, let's give it a shot.

- We've never had a policy for systematically splitting packages strictly based
on a couple of fairly common packages. The policy is mostly based on
common-sense, i.e. when the subpackage has a real dependency bloat issue such as
bringing in the entire java stack, or gstreamer, or 25 perl packages.

- If we were to use your strict splitting policy on all Fedora packages, the
total number of packages in Fedora would be multiplied by 3 or 4. There's an
inherent cost associated with increasing the number of packages at the yum/rpm
level. Yum is improving all the time but it has enough work to do as it is.

- Simplicity. Keep It Simple. I'm looking at the tor tarball, and it's
dreadfully simple. No complicated dependencies, very small number of installed
files. Not even 2M in size. So the complexity you're introducing in the spec
file doesn't match the complexity of the upstream project.

- Consistency to me is an important issue. Consistency across Fedora for one. To
use more or less similar guidelines for packages split. Consistency across other
distributions for second. 

- Your refusal to collaborate with reviewers is hurting Fedora. You're
essentially blackballing a number of useful packages from entering Fedora, since
 you're holding a temporary monopoly on those particular package reviews.

- Enrico, nobody is doubting your technical expertise, but I just think your
reasoning doesn't fall within the scope of what Fedora is. Fedora is not a
distro targetted at the embedded world, and mock seems to work pretty well is it
now, so I don't understand the quest for the smallest system possible. The SysV
init is the default and only init system available right now, so isolating that
dependency right now doesn't make sense. Especially since we'll end up with a
subpackage containing a single 1.8 Kbytes shell script.

The fact that the entire community doens't support your splitting proposal, and
the fact that no other distros does it should *at least* give you a hint that
something is wrong with your reasoning. You can't be serious if you think you're
right and everyone else is wrong.

So please, either

- fold the package into one, so I can review it and let's get this over with

- close this bug and withdraw your review to give someone else the opportunity
to submit it.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the package-review mailing list