Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (169 mails)

[Maciej Pilichowski <macias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

  Justin, thanks for your reply.

> >   Examples: opensuse dropped smbfs package some time ago, and
> > this done silently, when you try to use smbfs... nothing, no
> > information why, what should user do. losetup worked perfectly
> > well in 10.2, after upgrade user is supposed to set from scratch
> > her/his configuration to make things work.
> Why doesn't cifs work? 

I have no clue, because whatever I do, it always shows the same error. 
Quite a lot people have the same problem.

> Is there a bugzilla.novell.com bug about 
> this? 

Cifs or smbfs? Former -- I would rather look at cifs reporting system, 
the latter one, yes. 

> Basically.. a buggy program isn't an excuse to
> keep an older unmaintained software around. The goal should be to
> make its replacement work. 

Of course -- but what to do between, here (*)?

[ time ]
old package removed --> system not working (*) --> newer version works


> If there is a case it doesn't work, file 
> a bug about it and someone will fix it.

I do this.

> > a) let's say user works with OS X.Y with package P installed
> > older than the basic package from this OS version (example
> > opensuse 10.2 and cups 1.1) -- do not touch such packages! it is
> > clear that user intentionally downgraded this package to work
> > with it, it was her/his will so do not force upgrade of such
> > packages
> openSUSE would have to ship a database of every openSUSE version /
> package version combination in order for this to work. 

No, no :-) Note, that the older package is already installed in the 
system (with broken dependencies already). Take a look at the cups 
example -- I have it installed already, I don't need it on the disc, 
I want the installer won't remove it.

> Even then, 
> not very safe for security reasons, et. al.

If it is installed, it is unsecure already.

> > b) dropping software (like smbfs (*)) -- provide fake packages (I
> > already reported this idea), so when user tries to use it explain
> > what she/he should do with it
> > b.1) however this example (*) shows a bad judgement -- I think it
> > is better to provide unmaintained code to help users, than to
> > remove such software and make things worse for users (cifs does
> > not work so well)
> And who do you blame when the unmaintained package has a security
> bug that allows someone to rootkit you, and it happens? 

Me. I saw a warning "unmaintained software", right? I had a choice.

> Do you 
> expect Novell to fix a security problem in an unmaintained piece of
> software that isn't even shipped in the supported versions?

Not at all. Unmaintained software is unmaintained software, I 
understand it. But at least I can install it and do my work.

> But a bug report needs to be submitted so
> that someone can look at it and figure out why it doesn't work.

Yes, I post bug/wish reports :-) But when the hardware matters usually 
it is a dead end (because developers do not have what I have, so 
reports are closed as worksforme or similar).

> It matters to us all. But backwards compatibility for the sake of
> backwards compatibility is a bad thing. 

Hmm, I don't agree with that (entirely). There should be continuous 
link between previous version and newer version. Nothing like "your 
system does not work, use google". I mentioned possible solutions, 
they are not perfect, but I think it is the place to discuss how to 
best solve the problem.

Thank you for reading :-),
have a nice day, bye
-- 
Maciej Pilichowski
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx