Debian Bug report logs - #480661
ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:08 +0200

Package: ltsp-server
Severity: normal

I want to generate an alien-arch LTSP chroot on a separate host, and don't
want that other host to offer services.

ltsp-server seems to be the package to install, but that depends on tftp
server.

I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of -standalone
(and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing if they don't
already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be packaged in a separate
"ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package that ltsp-server depends on.


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.25-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=da_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=da_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Message #10 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org>

To: dr@jones.dk, 480661@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 15:01:53 -0700

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of -standalone
> (and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing if they don't
> already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be packaged in a separate
> "ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package that ltsp-server depends on.

i've definitely pushed for a separate package in the past, although at
this point i'll look into lowering *tftpd* to recommends for
ltsp-server, and making it a dependency for ltsp-server-standalone.

openssh-client, *inetd*, and iproute also maybe would fall into this
category.

i'm not sure if it will require updating the code, or a simple update to
the dependencies.

live well,
  vagrant

Message #15 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: 480661@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:51:40 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:01:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of 
>> -standalone (and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing 
>> if they don't already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be 
>> packaged in a separate "ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package 
>> that ltsp-server depends on.
>
>i've definitely pushed for a separate package in the past, although at 
>this point i'll look into lowering *tftpd* to recommends for 
>ltsp-server, and making it a dependency for ltsp-server-standalone.

Better than current, but why?

I'd like to install "compilers" without such hosts becoming "servers".  
That becomes tricky with your approach.

What is the logic behind the current package split?  Why don't you like 
the separate package approach anymore?


>openssh-client, *inetd*, and iproute also maybe would fall into this 
>category.

Indeed - I just reacted on the first of them that I noticed :-)


  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIKAUcn7DbMsAkQLgRAoqNAJ9vHDeEWrlQqkl43iCE7tAeuOjLZACggG35
AmcKjo/AQD/1lvdge4A/EcA=
=Jtbv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #20 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org>

To: dr@jones.dk, 480661@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:23:33 -0700

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:01:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of 
> >> -standalone (and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing 
> >> if they don't already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be 
> >> packaged in a separate "ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package 
> >> that ltsp-server depends on.
> >
> >i've definitely pushed for a separate package in the past, although at 
> >this point i'll look into lowering *tftpd* to recommends for 
> >ltsp-server, and making it a dependency for ltsp-server-standalone.
> 
> Better than current, but why?

while certainly useful, i suspect that the proposed use-case is likely
infrequently needed. having the daemons listed as recommends will make
it possible to install without them, but by default the daemons will be
installed.
 
> I'd like to install "compilers" without such hosts becoming "servers".  
> That becomes tricky with your approach.

you simply need to install ltsp-server without the recommended
packages...
 
> What is the logic behind the current package split?  Why don't you like 
> the separate package approach anymore?

the logic is that ltsp-server-standalone depends on *all* of the
functionality, whereas ltsp-server will *typically* have most of the
core functionality(as recommends are pulled in by default), but allow
you to strip it down to a bare-bones if needed(by avoiding installation
or removing the undesired daemons).

that's my thoughts on the matter, but i'd be curious what the rest of
the pkg-ltsp team has to say...

live well,
  vagrant

Message #25 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: 480661@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:14:29 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:23:33AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

>> I'd like to install "compilers" without such hosts becoming 
>> "servers".  That becomes tricky with your approach.
>
>you simply need to install ltsp-server without the recommended 
>packages...

I do know how dependencies work.  I do know that I can opt-out from 
recommends.  So you find it sane to "recommend" the whole LTSP 
environment even to users that explicitly avoid your -standalone 
package?

Like advertisings:  Do you want to buy all our crap or do you want us to 
spam you first with offers about our crap?  No, you cannot avoid the 
spam, but it is really easy to just delete it as it comes in...


>> What is the logic behind the current package split?  Why don't you 
>> like the separate package approach anymore?
>
>the logic is that ltsp-server-standalone depends on *all* of the 
>functionality, whereas ltsp-server will *typically* have most of the 
>core functionality(as recommends are pulled in by default), but allow 
>you to strip it down to a bare-bones if needed(by avoiding installation 
>or removing the undesired daemons).

I do understand how dependencies work.  My question was about the 
_intend_ of the chosen dependencies.  It seems to me that you provide 
two packages aimed at fullfilling same needs, while I miss a package 
with a more limited (and, admitted, less common - who keeps those old 
iMacs around still?) scope.

I mean - if only you provided a single package I could understand it 
recommending daemons, but you provide 2 packages - 
ltsp-server-standalone that ensures everything works, and ltps-server 
with what different aim?

If you do not want to expand with a new binary package, then how about 
lowering daemon dependencies to suggests for the ltsp-server package?



  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIKJcVn7DbMsAkQLgRAu5vAJ9TnJuZoYdDgbLnDI92qmMVAa3ibgCfeSKb
GjNu5ZUORwywZiDC0vJB9F8=
=nFNk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #30 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org>

To: dr@jones.dk, 480661@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:46:05 -0700

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:14:29PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:23:33AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> What is the logic behind the current package split?  Why don't you 
> >> like the separate package approach anymore?
> >
> >the logic is that ltsp-server-standalone depends on *all* of the 
> >functionality, whereas ltsp-server will *typically* have most of the 
> >core functionality(as recommends are pulled in by default), but allow 
> >you to strip it down to a bare-bones if needed(by avoiding installation 
> >or removing the undesired daemons).
> 
> I do understand how dependencies work.  My question was about the 
> _intend_ of the chosen dependencies.  

i guess i should have higlighted *core* as well... anyways thanks for
nudging me to spell this out:

my *intent* is that the ltsp-server-standalone provides a complete LTSP
server, with remote devices, remote sound and dhcp, and that those
features are not optional. it ensures that the bells and whistles are
available.

the ltsp-server package provides a basic ltsp server, providing the
services necessary to network-boot thin clients, making it possible to
install only the additional features desired. it provides the core
functionality of ltsp, which includes network booting and networked root
filesystem.

the descriptions for both packages clearly need updating to reflect
that, as they were written when ltsp-server-standalone merely included
an additional dependency on a dhcpd.

...snip...

> If you do not want to expand with a new binary package, then how about 
> lowering daemon dependencies to suggests for the ltsp-server package?

after reading the descriptions for suggests and recommends in
debian-policy 7.2:

     `Recommends'
          This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.

          The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
          together with this one in all but unusual installations.

i believe recommends would be more appropriate, as the default behavior
in the most common cases still allows for unusual cases where you don't
want any daemons installed. if those unusual cases were more common, i'd
consider splitting it into a separate package.

live well,
  vagrant

Message #35 received at 480661@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: 480661@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 23:49:29 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

package ltsp-server
clone 480661 -1
retitle -1 ltsp-server: Please package bootstrapping scripts separate from daemon recommendations
severity -1 wishlist
thanks

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 01:46:05PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>my *intent* is that the ltsp-server-standalone provides a complete LTSP
>server,
[snip]
>the ltsp-server package provides a basic ltsp server,

Thanks for the clarification.  I understand now the relevancy of both 
packages.


>> If you do not want to expand with a new binary package, then how 
>> about lowering daemon dependencies to suggests for the ltsp-server 
>> package?

...and therefore agree that it does not make sense to relax dependencies 
of ltsp-server: It has a purpose different from -standalone.


>if those unusual cases [of installations without daemons] were more 
>common, i'd consider splitting it into a separate package.

The relevancy of bootstrapping tools being available untied to daemons 
is tied to bug #480664 (support for bootstrapping alien archs using 
qemu): I believe it not unusual to (want to[1]) serve LTSP for multiple 
archs from a single host.  And when you need an alien host to bootstrap 
LTSP for alien thin clients, I believe it makes sense to offer a package 
for that purpose.

Forking this bugreport as a wishlist request for such package. :-)


Kind regards,

  - Jonas


[1] I suspect that actual non-x86 LTSP environments are uncommon 
currently, as older newworld macs are tricky to netboot due to bugs in 
OpenFirmware (and newer macs are too expensive for use as thin clients). 
I am looking into this and hope to have an improved dhcpd.conf for you 
shortly. :-)

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #42 received at 480661-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org>

To: 480661-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#480661: fixed in ltsp 5.1.9-1

Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 08:47:11 +0000

Source: ltsp
Source-Version: 5.1.9-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ltsp, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

ltsp-client-builder_5.1.9-1_all.udeb
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp-client-builder_5.1.9-1_all.udeb
ltsp-client-core_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp-client-core_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
ltsp-client_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp-client_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
ltsp-server-standalone_5.1.9-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp-server-standalone_5.1.9-1_all.deb
ltsp-server_5.1.9-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp-server_5.1.9-1_all.deb
ltsp_5.1.9-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp_5.1.9-1.diff.gz
ltsp_5.1.9-1.dsc
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp_5.1.9-1.dsc
ltsp_5.1.9.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/l/ltsp/ltsp_5.1.9.orig.tar.gz



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 480661@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org> (supplier of updated ltsp package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:22:58 -0700
Source: ltsp
Binary: ltsp-server ltsp-server-standalone ltsp-client-core ltsp-client ltsp-client-builder
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 5.1.9-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: LTSP Debian/Ubuntu Maintainers <pkg-ltsp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@freegeek.org>
Description: 
 ltsp-client - LTSP client environment
 ltsp-client-builder - build an LTSP environment in the installer target (udeb)
 ltsp-client-core - LTSP client environment
 ltsp-server - basic LTSP server environment
 ltsp-server-standalone - complete LTSP server environment
Closes: 480660 480661 481210
Changes: 
 ltsp (5.1.9-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * new upstream version:
     - plugin to create squashfs+aufs images
     - use default nbdswapd port of 9572 consistantly
 .
   * add support for dpatch to debian/rules and add dependency in
     debian/control
 .
   * add patch by José L. Redrejo Rodríguez to replace unionfs with aufs
     (Closes: #481210)
 .
   * add warning regarding installation of ltsp-client in description
     (Closes: #480660)
 .
   * updated package descriptions to clarify differences between ltsp-server
     and ltsp-server-standalone.
 .
   * lower dependencies on tftp and inetd daemons to recommends for
     ltsp-server, and add as dependencies for ltsp-server-standalone.
     (Closes: #480661)
 .
   * ltsp-server: allow dnsmasq as an alternative to a DHCP and/or TFTP server
   * ltsp-client: depend on rdesktop
   * drop references to transitional ssh package
 .
   * ltsp-client: added lintian override for depends-on-x-metapackage
Checksums-Sha1: 
 99dc40073b6b03b853f8d6f55521f6dc56095100 1457 ltsp_5.1.9-1.dsc
 84d3117372af5d2f931c43fb57917fea1eb057b8 140386 ltsp_5.1.9.orig.tar.gz
 07a73cf44056391cac5603d5d38038e85bc7f59b 66908 ltsp_5.1.9-1.diff.gz
 1a877e6cb4cd578b563093a6468d5dc65a810801 92292 ltsp-server_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 6c9e77b5bf11e9ffd67955e1a17d844dea576674 39904 ltsp-server-standalone_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 29303ee6e195882bff4fcb2dfe29c087d8047c98 7336 ltsp-client-builder_5.1.9-1_all.udeb
 7f130390b0b2a732fdf0963143a0497e3ee12e53 73548 ltsp-client-core_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
 28e526712bb55f288adde38e370ab054344ba33b 39240 ltsp-client_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 722f6087e5211277bd4a3c0e5ae474f08754d58d7105c9be5dae886be10562bf 1457 ltsp_5.1.9-1.dsc
 39c602e952acaf0dd269bd7b593df67fabadabe7c103d65aaa1884e9d85b1eff 140386 ltsp_5.1.9.orig.tar.gz
 56e87dbd593d55bc73ed5c3846a6541c5241614b1507645b9659516808c6ee2a 66908 ltsp_5.1.9-1.diff.gz
 37b7ee44f28a4313c3dab8567b15c063abfad81a135b8ae944382c8dbfc7c109 92292 ltsp-server_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 ca13291456a3429f26b6688289da3eb24413c0a12467812c34de78ec067bc7b4 39904 ltsp-server-standalone_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 2868bf4ae120ce2a7da85d166002955d2e31e8ed8c50e725c662873b8ae3099a 7336 ltsp-client-builder_5.1.9-1_all.udeb
 964edd16aea1d39fbeb837025769647cfd66973ed38feaad086edf57c8dcec9e 73548 ltsp-client-core_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
 49928cb629cea903c210eee61d05481659aa6a6e4d1ff53244be9ab7f8cb30d4 39240 ltsp-client_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
Files: 
 36a12935121837bed1d491760318b924 1457 misc extra ltsp_5.1.9-1.dsc
 36741dd568fa1a31ac756d576d1898d5 140386 misc extra ltsp_5.1.9.orig.tar.gz
 4537fe0f7d6757bbf22f70f37cadab84 66908 misc extra ltsp_5.1.9-1.diff.gz
 cc980099e6bbd02f8628d76990b901d8 92292 misc extra ltsp-server_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 452a21cf38da688228e6ca224c6b7a9a 39904 misc extra ltsp-server-standalone_5.1.9-1_all.deb
 9b3786efb7aae123d3c4f9dcf381d042 7336 debian-installer extra ltsp-client-builder_5.1.9-1_all.udeb
 c580dbca2ba952fde47778a5b2c6c543 73548 misc extra ltsp-client-core_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
 7571f1215763f2fc97d8aaa0c0815a01 39240 misc extra ltsp-client_5.1.9-1_i386.deb
Package-Type: udeb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFINSLjlPc63BPWGpkRAogXAJ9mnM6W8JnbkVWrQX58lbKdZoXqtwCfdIJ7
eNr+lhPuFSzz1LepDmkUUQk=
=BCrE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.