Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #197650 > unrolled thread

Debian got too fat?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian got too fat? Harald Dunkel <harri@afaics.de> - 2018-07-15 12:30 +0200
    Re: Debian got too fat? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 13:50 +0200
      Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-07-15 21:40 +0200
        Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 22:10 +0200
          Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-07-17 04:00 +0200
        Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-07-15 23:00 +0200
        Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-07-16 04:00 +0200
          Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-07-16 12:20 +0200
            Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-07-16 14:20 +0200
              Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-07-16 16:00 +0200
          Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-07-16 14:10 +0200
            Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-07-16 14:50 +0200
              Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-07-16 15:10 +0200
              Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 15:20 +0200
                Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-07-16 19:30 +0200
                  Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-16 20:10 +0200
                    Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?] Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-07-17 02:20 +0200
                      Differences between installs (was: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-07-18 03:40 +0200
                        Re: Differences between installs (was: Naive newbie question [Re:  Debian got too fat?]) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-18 10:30 +0200
          Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question] Octopus Octopus <oct2pus@jade.moe> - 2018-07-17 03:20 +0200
            Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question] Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-07-17 04:00 +0200
              Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question] Austin LaBerta <oct2pus@jade.moe> - 2018-07-17 13:00 +0200
                Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-17 14:10 +0200
      Re: Debian got too fat? Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de> - 2018-07-16 08:50 +0200
    Re: Debian got too fat? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-07-16 10:50 +0200
      Re: Debian got too fat? Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 22:00 +0200
      Re: Debian got too fat? Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de> - 2018-07-17 09:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#197716 — Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:11:20PM -0500, Octopus Octopus wrote:
>    as <odyx@debian.org> states
>
>        For all practical concerns, you should consider the LSB package orphaned (and
>        I should probably just go ahead and orphan it).
>
>
>    and if a lot of things depend on lsb-base, isn't that like, very very bad?
>    Like 'a critical component of our system has been left completely
>    unmaintained' bad?

Have you looked at lsb-base?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197725 — Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question]

i can neither find the source on salsa (since as far as what i've found
lsb-base is a stripped down version compared to the actual lsb specs?),
nor a man entry. It has something to do with logging?

I guess thats not very essential, although a breakage could be very
annoying for locating other problems.

On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 21:51 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:11:20PM -0500, Octopus Octopus wrote:
> >    as <odyx@debian.org> states
> > 
> >        For all practical concerns, you should consider the LSB
> > package orphaned (and
> >        I should probably just go ahead and orphan it).
> > 
> > 
> >    and if a lot of things depend on lsb-base, isn't that like, very
> > very bad?
> >    Like 'a critical component of our system has been left
> > completely
> >    unmaintained' bad?
> 
> Have you looked at lsb-base?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197727 — Re: A Different Naive Question [Re: Naive newbie question]

quoting.
top
Stop

> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 21:51 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Have you looked at lsb-base?

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:57:58AM -0500, Austin LaBerta wrote:
> i can neither find the source on salsa (since as far as what i've found
> lsb-base is a stripped down version compared to the actual lsb specs?),
> nor a man entry. It has something to do with logging?

Here's a hint:

wooledg:~$ dpkg -L lsb-base
/.
/lib
/lib/lsb
/lib/lsb/init-functions
/lib/lsb/init-functions.d
/lib/lsb/init-functions.d/20-left-info-blocks
/usr
/usr/share
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/lsb-base
/usr/share/doc/lsb-base/NEWS.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/lsb-base/README.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/lsb-base/changelog.gz
/usr/share/doc/lsb-base/copyright

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197681

Hi Reco,

On 7/15/18 1:44 PM, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> would you mind to take a look at
>>
>> 	https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888743
>>
>> The fix is pretty easy.
> 
> But does not address all the cornercases, IMO.
> Consider, for instance, an LXC container which shares root filesystem
> with the host.
> 

The "pidof -c" is just a workaround. In your case pidofproc would
fall back into the current (broken) functionality, AFAICS. A *clean*
solution would give /bin/pidof the boot and rely upon the PID files
in /run only.

This is not the problem here. The problem is that things like this
don't get fixed because its pretty complex code for an easy task.
Changing it might have unforeseeable side effects and nobody dares
to touch it.


Regards
Harri

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197683

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>would you mind to take a look at
>
>	https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888743
>
>The fix is pretty easy. Whats really bugging me is that nobody
>dares to touch the complex code of lsb-base. IMHO this is a clear
>indication that Debian lost the blessed path other Unixes do follow.
>
>What is your suggestion here? Apply the patch I provided (or maybe a
>better one), or get rid of lsb-base completely?

My suggestion is unless you are prepared to adopt and maintain lsb-base,
(as Didier has made clear he wants to orphan it), find an alternative
tool to achieve what you want.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197707

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:45 AM Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>
> >What is your suggestion here? Apply the patch I provided (or maybe a
> >better one), or get rid of lsb-base completely?
>
> My suggestion is unless you are prepared to adopt and maintain lsb-base,
> (as Didier has made clear he wants to orphan it), find an alternative
> tool to achieve what you want.

Since I didn't understand the Debian-official position on this topic,
here is the
relevant section from wikipedia:
"Debian strived to comply with the LSB, but with many limitations.
However, this effort ceased around July 2015 due to lack of interest
and workforce inside the project. In September 2015, the Debian
project confirmed that while support for Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
(FHS) would continue, support for LSB had been dropped. Ubuntu
followed Debian in November 2015."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197719

On 7/16/18 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> 
> My suggestion is unless you are prepared to adopt and maintain lsb-base,
> (as Didier has made clear he wants to orphan it), find an alternative
> tool to achieve what you want.
> 

I am already running my private lsb-base package for several months.
The bug (#888743) put my environment at risk. Adding a workaround to
lsb-base was easier than creating private versions of all packages
affected.

Would you suggest to deprecate lsb-base?


Regards
Harri

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web