Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 Information in this tracker are outdated too.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 [1] 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. Enrico Footnotes: [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373#c8 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
