init scripts included in the apt-get install for tahoe-lafs on Debian/Ubuntu derivatives #961

New issue

Closed

opened 2010-02-20 05:44:57 +00:00 by stott · 37 comments

stott commented

2010-02-20 05:44:57 +00:00

Owner

/etc/init scripts should be included by default to start tahoe-lafs if there are configured nodes, introducrs or helpers, Tahoe should auto-start. Run level 3, after most other services are up and running.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2010-02-20 05:44:57 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the eventually milestone 2010-02-20 05:44:57 +00:00

USSJoin commented

2010-02-21 01:49:19 +00:00

Author

Owner

However, there's an easy workaround I've found, that I'm now using:

ln -s /usr/local/bin/tahoe /etc/init.d/tahoe

This does require that the "root" user be able to run tahoe, which requires an

ln -s /path/to/your/.tahoe /root/.tahoe

But that's also required by any (theoretical) upstart script.

So I just spent a few hours trying to write an upstart (the new ubuntu replacement for init.d) script for Tahoe. It appears not to be possible, because the Tahoe daemon forks in such a way that the initctl processes can't follow it (with either the "expect daemon" or "expect fork" stanzas). However, there's an easy workaround I've found, that I'm now using: ln -s /usr/local/bin/tahoe /etc/init.d/tahoe This *does* require that the "root" user be able to run tahoe, which requires an ln -s /path/to/your/.tahoe /root/.tahoe But that's also required by any (theoretical) upstart script.

daira commented

2010-02-22 00:05:00 +00:00

Replying to USSJoin:

However, there's an easy workaround I've found, that I'm now using:

ln -s /usr/local/bin/tahoe /etc/init.d/tahoe

This does require that the "root" user be able to run tahoe, which requires an

ln -s /path/to/your/.tahoe /root/.tahoe

But that's also required by any (theoretical) upstart script.

Note that this conflicts with #725 ("we should whine if we're running as root"). Apart from being a really bad idea because of excess privilege, running the gateway as root causes directories and files to be owned by root and not accessible to other users, which then hoses any attempt to run the gateway as another user. (The CLI should still work provided that tahoe create-node or tahoe create-client wasn't run as root.)

Replying to [USSJoin](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376521): > However, there's an easy workaround I've found, that I'm now using: > > ln -s /usr/local/bin/tahoe /etc/init.d/tahoe > > This *does* require that the "root" user be able to run tahoe, which requires an > > ln -s /path/to/your/.tahoe /root/.tahoe > > But that's also required by any (theoretical) upstart script. Note that this conflicts with #725 ("we should whine if we're running as root"). Apart from being a really bad idea because of excess privilege, running the gateway as root causes directories and files to be owned by root and not accessible to other users, which then hoses any attempt to run the gateway as another user. (The CLI should still work provided that `tahoe create-node` or `tahoe create-client` wasn't run as root.)

daira modified the milestone from eventually to 1.7.0

2010-02-27 09:00:54 +00:00

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:06:14 +00:00

Attachment tahoelafsd (3124 bytes) added

An init.d script created for Debian Lenny (from /etc/init.d/skel)

**Attachment** tahoelafsd (3124 bytes) added An init.d script created for Debian Lenny (from /etc/init.d/skel)

tahoelafsd

3.1 KiB

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:07:03 +00:00

Attachment tahoelafsd.2 (300 bytes) added

this file goes in /etc/default/tahoelafsd

**Attachment** tahoelafsd.2 (300 bytes) added this file goes in /etc/default/tahoelafsd

tahoelafsd.2

300 B

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:10:43 +00:00

A Debian user should do the following to securely run Tahoe:

addgroup --system tahoelafsd
adduser --disabled-login --system --home /var/lib/tahoelafs --shell /bin/bash --ingroup tahoelafsd tahoelafsd 
tahoe create client /var/lib/tahoelafs/

When using the init.d script that I have attached, Tahoe will run as the user tahoelafsd user and not as root.

The Tahoe packages should include this as part of the files provided in debian/

A Debian user should do the following to securely run Tahoe: ``` addgroup --system tahoelafsd adduser --disabled-login --system --home /var/lib/tahoelafs --shell /bin/bash --ingroup tahoelafsd tahoelafsd tahoe create client /var/lib/tahoelafs/ ``` When using the init.d script that I have attached, Tahoe will run as the user tahoelafsd user and not as root. The Tahoe packages should include this as part of the files provided in debian/

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:18:24 +00:00

It's probably a good idea to keep the entire tahoelafs home directory hidden from the rest of the system:

chmod 750 /var/lib/tahoelafs/

It's important to note that you'll want to edit the /var/lib/tahoelafs/tahoe.cfg file after the creation of the client config or the init.d script will not work.

By default, I think that the init.d script should simply not start tahoe without a configuration... I'll add that and replace the DEFAULTS file....

It's probably a good idea to keep the entire tahoelafs home directory hidden from the rest of the system: ``` chmod 750 /var/lib/tahoelafs/ ``` It's important to note that you'll want to edit the /var/lib/tahoelafs/tahoe.cfg file after the creation of the client config or the init.d script will not work. By default, I think that the init.d script should simply not start tahoe without a configuration... I'll add that and replace the DEFAULTS file....

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:27:45 +00:00

Attachment tahoelafsd.3 (581 bytes) added

New defaults file for debian

**Attachment** tahoelafsd.3 (581 bytes) added New defaults file for debian

tahoelafsd.3

581 B

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:29:18 +00:00

Attachment tahoelafsd.4 (591 bytes) added

tahoe defaults file

**Attachment** tahoelafsd.4 (591 bytes) added tahoe defaults file

tahoelafsd.4

591 B

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:30:05 +00:00

Attachment tahoelafsd.5 (3272 bytes) added

finial version of init.d script that uses defaults properly

**Attachment** tahoelafsd.5 (3272 bytes) added finial version of init.d script that uses defaults properly

tahoelafsd.5

3.2 KiB

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 08:31:14 +00:00

It's likely that Tahoe (post-configuration) should start at boot:

# update-rc.d -f tahoelafsd defaults
 Adding system startup for /etc/init.d/tahoelafsd ...
   /etc/rc0.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc1.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc6.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc2.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc3.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc4.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd
   /etc/rc5.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd

It's likely that Tahoe (post-configuration) should start at boot: ``` # update-rc.d -f tahoelafsd defaults Adding system startup for /etc/init.d/tahoelafsd ... /etc/rc0.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc1.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc6.d/K20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc2.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc3.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc4.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd /etc/rc5.d/S20tahoelafsd -> ../init.d/tahoelafsd ```

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 09:42:30 +00:00

Attachment debian-init-script-patch-final (9700 bytes) added

the lenny files required to install, remove, and purge a .deb

**Attachment** debian-init-script-patch-final (9700 bytes) added the lenny files required to install, remove, and purge a .deb

debian-init-script-patch-final

9.5 KiB

ioerror commented

2010-03-04 09:46:23 +00:00

I've also configured it to run at boot like so:

 update-rc.d -f allmydata-tahoe defaults
 Adding system startup for /etc/init.d/allmydata-tahoe ...
   /etc/rc0.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc1.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc6.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc2.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc3.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc4.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe
   /etc/rc5.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe

With the above patch, I've installed, uninstalled, reinstalled, purged, and then installed again. I have configured my daemon to run by editing /etc/defaults/allmydata-tahoe and having a configured /var/lib/tahoelafsd directory... I've also configured it to run at boot like so: ``` update-rc.d -f allmydata-tahoe defaults Adding system startup for /etc/init.d/allmydata-tahoe ... /etc/rc0.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc1.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc6.d/K20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc2.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc3.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc4.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe /etc/rc5.d/S20allmydata-tahoe -> ../init.d/allmydata-tahoe ```

daira commented

2010-03-04 19:41:56 +00:00

Needs documentation. Also, is dpkg --remove supposed to remove the user/group?

The Debian FAQ says:

Remove a package (but not its configuration files): dpkg --remove foo
Remove a package (including its configuration files): dpkg --purge foo

(also see here).

Maybe --purge should remove the user/group and --remove should not (but I'm not an expert on Debian package management).

Needs documentation. Also, is `dpkg --remove` supposed to remove the user/group? The [Debian FAQ](http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkgtools.en.html) says: * Remove a package (but not its configuration files): `dpkg --remove foo` * Remove a package (including its configuration files): `dpkg --purge foo` (also see [here](http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html#s-pkgstatus)). Maybe `--purge` should remove the user/group and `--remove` should not (but I'm not an expert on Debian package management).

daira commented

2010-03-04 19:45:20 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

Also, is dpkg --remove supposed to remove the user/group?

Oh, you changed that in a later patch. Never mind, that looks right now (remove only the user on purge).

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376528): > Also, is `dpkg --remove` supposed to remove the user/group? Oh, you changed that in a later patch. Never mind, that looks right now (remove only the user on purge).

francois commented

2010-03-04 19:57:07 +00:00

Author

Owner

Attachment fix-debian-building-instructions.dpatch (2287 bytes) added

This patch fix a few missing commands in ioerror's modifications to docs/debian.txt

**Attachment** fix-debian-building-instructions.dpatch (2287 bytes) added This patch fix a few missing commands in ioerror's modifications to docs/debian.txt

fix-debian-building-instructions.dpatch

2.2 KiB

ioerror commented

2010-03-05 00:41:22 +00:00

Attachment debian-docs-patch-final.txt (4549 bytes) added

Only two packages aren't .debs now

**Attachment** debian-docs-patch-final.txt (4549 bytes) added Only two packages aren't .debs now

debian-docs-patch-final.txt

4.4 KiB

ioerror commented

2010-03-05 00:42:15 +00:00

What other documentation should I write up? Perhaps a man page? Or just continuing to flesh out the debian.txt?

I've attached my current debian.txt - it's how I build Tahoe on my current production system that is on the volunteer grid. I changed a few steps to match the documentation patch from francois.

What other documentation should I write up? Perhaps a man page? Or just continuing to flesh out the debian.txt? I've attached my current debian.txt - it's how I build Tahoe on my current production system that is on the volunteer grid. I changed a few steps to match the documentation patch from francois.

ioerror commented

2010-03-06 03:32:57 +00:00

There's one issue that is currently outstanding in this package but seemingly unrelated to Debian. It appears that setuptools has a multiple input warning:

# /etc/init.d/allmydata-tahoe start
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/zope/__init__.py:19: UserWarning: Module allmydata was already imported from /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/allmydata/__init__.py, but /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages is being added to sys.path
  import pkg_resources
STARTING /var/lib/tahoelafsd
client node probably started

There's one issue that is currently outstanding in this package but seemingly unrelated to Debian. It appears that setuptools has a multiple input warning: ``` # /etc/init.d/allmydata-tahoe start /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/zope/__init__.py:19: UserWarning: Module allmydata was already imported from /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/allmydata/__init__.py, but /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages is being added to sys.path import pkg_resources STARTING /var/lib/tahoelafsd client node probably started ```

ioerror commented

2010-03-06 03:49:21 +00:00

diff -u allmydata-tahoe /tmp/allmydata-tahoe.init 
--- allmydata-tahoe.init     2010-03-04 00:48:45.000000000 -0800
+++ /tmp/allmydata-tahoe.init    2010-03-05 19:31:53.000000000 -0800
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 DAEMONHOME="/var/lib/tahoelafsd/"
 DAEMON=/usr/bin/$NAME
 DAEMON_ARGS=" start $DAEMONHOME"
-PIDFILE=/var/lib/tahoelafsd/twisted.pid
 USERNAME=tahoelafsd
 SCRIPTNAME=/etc/init.d/$NAME

``` diff -u allmydata-tahoe /tmp/allmydata-tahoe.init --- allmydata-tahoe.init 2010-03-04 00:48:45.000000000 -0800 +++ /tmp/allmydata-tahoe.init 2010-03-05 19:31:53.000000000 -0800 @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@ DAEMONHOME="/var/lib/tahoelafsd/" DAEMON=/usr/bin/$NAME DAEMON_ARGS=" start $DAEMONHOME" -PIDFILE=/var/lib/tahoelafsd/twisted.pid USERNAME=tahoelafsd SCRIPTNAME=/etc/init.d/$NAME ```

zooko commented

2010-03-10 03:26:00 +00:00

Let's see... this ticket was "assigned" to warner (by me) but he never "accepted" it, so he hasn't indicated that he actually intends to review it soon. Could someone else review it?

warner commented

2010-03-10 19:59:36 +00:00

In the meantime, you can run twistd directly. "tahoe start BASEDIR" is equivalent to something like "cd BASEDIR && twistd -y *.tac --logfile logs/twistd.log". If you add --nodaemon to the twistd arguments, it won't daemonize. If you want to launch tahoe from an init.d script using start-stop-daemon, that's probably what you want to use. You might also want to use the --pidfile argument to control where the pidfile goes.

FYI, "tahoe start" is a simple frontend to "twistd", the Twisted daemon-launching tool. Eventually we'll fix it so that any extra arguments you pass to "tahoe start" will be copied to "twistd", which will let you get a bit more control over how the daemon is started. In the meantime, you can run twistd directly. "`tahoe start BASEDIR`" is equivalent to something like "`cd BASEDIR && twistd -y *.tac --logfile logs/twistd.log`". If you add `--nodaemon` to the twistd arguments, it won't daemonize. If you want to launch tahoe from an init.d script using start-stop-daemon, that's probably what you want to use. You might also want to use the --pidfile argument to control where the pidfile goes.

zooko commented

2010-04-12 17:37:20 +00:00

What's the status of this ticket? It was assigned to Brian but he hasn't accepted it, and it is marked as review-needed. I don't understand if Brian's comment:376534 was intended as a code review requesting further changes or if it was just helpful commentary. I'm unassigning this from Brian and issuing a call for a reviewer. wiki/PatchReviewProcess

What's the status of this ticket? It was assigned to Brian but he hasn't accepted it, and it is marked as `review-needed`. I don't understand if Brian's [comment:376534](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376534) was intended as a code review requesting further changes or if it was just helpful commentary. I'm unassigning this from Brian and issuing a call for a reviewer. [wiki/PatchReviewProcess](wiki/PatchReviewProcess)

zooko commented

2010-06-17 04:39:31 +00:00

Brian: I wonder if people are put off from taking another step on this ticket because they aren't sure what you meant in comment:376534. Just in case, would you please state whether the code here is good enough or whether in your opinion changes are needed? If the former, please remove review-needed from the keywords and add reviewed to the keywords. If the latter, please remove review-needed from the keywords. Thanks!

Brian: I wonder if people are put off from taking another step on this ticket because they aren't sure what you meant in [comment:376534](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376534). Just in case, would you please state whether the code here is good enough or whether in your opinion changes are needed? If the former, please remove `review-needed` from the keywords and add `reviewed` to the keywords. If the latter, please remove `review-needed` from the keywords. Thanks!

zooko modified the milestone from 1.7.0 to soon

2010-06-17 04:39:31 +00:00

taral commented

2010-06-17 22:37:16 +00:00

Author

Owner

python-foolscap is packaged in debian sid.

Instead of packaging argparse and zbase32, you could just include them in the allmydata package directly. They are pretty small.

+1 to running twistd directly instead of using tahoe start. Or add a --nodaemon flag to tahoe start that causes it to exec twistd instead of forking?

Why do you have automatically generated sections in your postinst? Oh, I see. darcs unrecord is your friend.

Why not remove the group you created?

python-foolscap is packaged in debian sid. Instead of packaging argparse and zbase32, you could just include them in the allmydata package directly. They are pretty small. +1 to running twistd directly instead of using tahoe start. Or add a --nodaemon flag to tahoe start that causes it to exec twistd instead of forking? Why do you have automatically generated sections in your postinst? Oh, I see. darcs unrecord is your friend. Why not remove the group you created?

warner commented

2010-06-17 23:04:25 +00:00

Zooko: comment:376534 was intended as helpful commentary. Folks who want to write init scripts but who are put off by "tahoe start"'s automatic daemonizing. Such folks could use the information in comment:376534 to write a better init script.

I haven't touched tahoe+debian packaging in a long time.. I'm not currently familiar with how we're doing it (if at all). The last I remember was planning a new out-of-tree scheme using git-buildpackage and a collection of schroot jails (of various ubuntu/debian) versions on an EC2 host. My thought was to copy the debian.diff files from that effort back into the tahoe source tree. I vaguely remember thinking that I wanted to keep the in-tree stuff simple, and leave things like init.d scripts "to the professionals" (i.e. the actual ubuntu/debian packages that ship in Lenny, etc), and perhaps as a result not putting energy into landing tese patches.

So I cannot currently sign off on the patches: I don't have the time to page that stuff back into my brain and do a proper review. Maybe next week.

Zooko: [comment:376534](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376534) was intended as helpful commentary. Folks who want to write init scripts but who are put off by "tahoe start"'s automatic daemonizing. Such folks could use the information in [comment:376534](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376534) to write a better init script. I haven't touched tahoe+debian packaging in a long time.. I'm not currently familiar with how we're doing it (if at all). The last I remember was planning a new out-of-tree scheme using git-buildpackage and a collection of schroot jails (of various ubuntu/debian) versions on an EC2 host. My thought was to copy the debian.diff files from that effort back into the tahoe source tree. I vaguely remember thinking that I wanted to keep the in-tree stuff simple, and leave things like init.d scripts "to the professionals" (i.e. the actual ubuntu/debian packages that ship in Lenny, etc), and perhaps as a result not putting energy into landing tese patches. So I cannot currently sign off on the patches: I don't have the time to page that stuff back into my brain and do a proper review. Maybe next week.

zooko changed title from ~~There are no init scripts included in the Ubuntu apt-get install for tahoe-lafs~~ to init scripts included in the Ubuntu apt-get install for tahoe-lafs

2010-07-14 06:19:55 +00:00

daira commented

2010-07-17 23:40:52 +00:00

I had reviewed a previous version of these patches, and the changes since then look good. I think that any remaining issues (e.g. comment:376531) are minor and new tickets should be opened for them.

I suggest committing these patches for 1.7.1, or failing that 1.8beta. They won't cause regressions; the worst that can happen is that the scripts don't do precisely what users want.

I had reviewed a previous version of these patches, and the changes since then look good. I think that any remaining issues (e.g. [comment:376531](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376531)) are minor and new tickets should be opened for them. I suggest committing these patches for 1.7.1, or failing that 1.8beta. They won't cause regressions; the worst that can happen is that the scripts don't do precisely what users want.

zooko modified the milestone from soon to 1.7.1

2010-07-18 04:35:33 +00:00

zooko commented

2010-07-18 05:52:50 +00:00

applied in changeset:ca660a5fc6cb8d55, changeset:babbdf949437116b. Thanks, Jacob and David-Sarah!

zooko added the

r/fixed

label 2010-07-18 05:52:50 +00:00

zooko closed this issue

2010-07-18 05:52:50 +00:00

zooko commented

2013-07-06 14:43:22 +00:00

I was talking with intrigeri about including Tahoe-LAFS in Tails (https://tails.boum.org/), and he pointed out this Debian bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003 . That bug report by Thomas Pierson contact@thomaspierson.fr says that he can't find the actual init script anywhere. Sure enough, reviewing this ticket it appears to me that we accidentally omitted the actual init script (final version attached to this ticket by ioerror: attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final).

Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final? You wrote review notes in comment:376541.

ioerror: why did you post the diff in comment:376532? Why remove the PID file variable setting?

I was talking with intrigeri about including Tahoe-LAFS in Tails (<https://tails.boum.org/>), and he pointed out this Debian bug report: <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003> . That bug report by Thomas Pierson <contact@thomaspierson.fr> says that he can't find the actual init script anywhere. Sure enough, reviewing this ticket it appears to me that we accidentally omitted the actual init script (final version attached to this ticket by ioerror: attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final). Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final? You wrote review notes in [comment:376541](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376541). ioerror: why did you post the diff in [comment:376532](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376532)? Why remove the PID file variable setting?

zooko removed the

r/fixed

label 2013-07-06 14:43:22 +00:00

zooko reopened this issue

2013-07-06 14:43:22 +00:00

gdt commented

2013-07-06 15:06:51 +00:00

Author

Owner

There's also the issue of whether things are included with the sources or are part of packaging. Probably most things belong in the sources so they can be used/tested independently of packages. But user creation feels like it should be a packaging thing.

Is there a documented general strategy for how to place OS-specific helper files? It seems that these could be provided for a dozen systems, at least and thus there should be some subdirectory structure to avoid this getting cluttered. There's also the issue of whether things are included with the sources or are part of packaging. Probably most things belong in the sources so they can be used/tested independently of packages. But user creation feels like it should be a packaging thing.

daira commented

2013-07-06 19:21:31 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final?

Yes (and I just rereviewed it). I'm not an expert on Debian packaging, but it looks fine to me, modulo this:

ioerror: why did you post the diff in comment:376532? Why remove the PID file variable setting?

I'm not ioerror, but the PIDFILE variable appears to be unused (and the pid file is called twistd.pid anyway, not twisted.pid).

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376546): > Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final? Yes (and I just rereviewed it). I'm not an expert on Debian packaging, but it looks fine to me, modulo this: > ioerror: why did you post the diff in [comment:376532](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376532)? Why remove the PID file variable setting? I'm not ioerror, but the `PIDFILE` variable appears to be unused (and the pid file is called `twistd.pid` anyway, not `twisted.pid`).

daira added

p/normal

and removed

p/minor

labels 2013-07-06 19:21:31 +00:00

daira modified the milestone from 1.7.1 to 1.11.0

2013-07-06 19:21:31 +00:00

daira commented

2013-07-06 19:24:19 +00:00

Replying to [daira]comment:27:

Replying to zooko:

Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final?

Yes (and I just rereviewed it). I'm not an expert on Debian packaging, but it looks fine to me, modulo this: [...]

and misc/lenny no longer being an appropriate directory to put it in.

Replying to [daira]comment:27: > Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/961#issuecomment-376546): > > Daira: did you review attachment:debian-init-script-patch-final? > > Yes (and I just rereviewed it). I'm not an expert on Debian packaging, but it looks fine to me, modulo this: [...] and `misc/lenny` no longer being an appropriate directory to put it in.

zooko commented

2013-07-07 18:42:26 +00:00

Per ticket #1454, we decided to remove the debian package files from the upstream source repository since those files were now being maintained by debian. This turns out to be partially mistaken, as this particular set of files (the init scripts), we never successfully transfered to the Debian maintainers yet!

zooko commented

2013-07-07 23:26:59 +00:00

Okay I created a branch in github, but it should not be merged to trunk because of #1454. As I said in the commit message, I'm creating this branch solely to give !Debian/Ubuntu/Tails packagers and us a shared codebase to point at and talk about:

https://github.com/zooko/tahoe-lafs/commit/cb6d458ab5c638f7b203ef07b91b4fb5873d91e0

Okay I created a branch in github, but it should *not* be merged to trunk because of #1454. As I said in the commit message, I'm creating this branch solely to give !Debian/Ubuntu/Tails packagers and us a shared codebase to point at and talk about: <https://github.com/zooko/tahoe-lafs/commit/cb6d458ab5c638f7b203ef07b91b4fb5873d91e0>

daira changed title from ~~init scripts included in the Ubuntu apt-get install for tahoe-lafs~~ to init scripts included in the apt-get install for tahoe-lafs on Debian/Ubuntu derivatives

2013-08-05 23:26:54 +00:00

zooko commented

2013-08-27 14:55:26 +00:00

Okay, I've posted to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003 asking the Debian maintainers to take over the init scripts. Closing this ticket as "Somebody Else's Problem".

Okay, I've posted to <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003> asking the Debian maintainers to take over the init scripts. Closing this ticket as "Somebody Else's Problem".

zooko added the

r/somebody else's problem

label 2013-08-27 14:55:26 +00:00

zooko closed this issue

2013-08-27 14:55:26 +00:00

zooko commented

2013-09-09 22:34:49 +00:00

I'm leaving this ticket closed, but here I'm posting a copy of my code-review of bertagaz's patch which is now in Debian.

Thank you for working on this! I just reviewed
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tahoe/tahoe.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.Debian;h=14ea2a7c1b38d41df36dd052c44cdf22603fd775;hb=87f7666c2c3a5059dc28ea95c336b9de7f08ae47
. It is interesting that this is using the username within the local
operating system as the "nick". That isn't what we intended the
nickname to be for, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with it.
It means that the node will announce to everyone who connects to it
what the local username is. Is that what was expected?

Hm, actually now that I think this through, I think the human reading
that doc needs a warning about this! I think you should add a sentence
that says "This nickname will be announced to all participants in the
grid." or something like that. Or, change the suggested command-lines
so that it no longer fills in the "nick" field from the username.

I'm leaving this ticket closed, but here I'm posting a copy of my code-review of bertagaz's patch which is now in Debian. Thank you for working on this! I just reviewed <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tahoe/tahoe.git;a=blob;f=debian/README.Debian;h=14ea2a7c1b38d41df36dd052c44cdf22603fd775;hb=87f7666c2c3a5059dc28ea95c336b9de7f08ae47> . It is interesting that this is using the username within the local operating system as the "nick". That isn't what we intended the nickname to be for, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. It means that the node will announce to everyone who connects to it what the local username is. Is that what was expected? Hm, actually now that I think this through, I think the human reading that doc needs a warning about this! I think you should add a sentence that says "This nickname will be announced to all participants in the grid." or something like that. Or, change the suggested command-lines so that it no longer fills in the "nick" field from the username.

zooko commented

2013-09-09 22:40:27 +00:00

Okay, I just reviewed
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tahoe/tahoe.git;a=blob;f=debian/tahoe-lafs.init;h=13b505fb4b2d4be959e3df7edef02a369a48fc7c;hb=8428876521454b5fd2b0719048caf909c0ab68ee
. Here are my comments.

Thank you for working on this patch! I'm excited about making Tahoe-LAFS be a more first-class citizen of the Debian universe. A lot of good can come of this. Thank you for your contribution.

I don't understand why /etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs restart does tahoe stop ; sleep 1 ; tahoe start and /etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs force-reload does tahoe restart. I think both of those should do tahoe restart.

I think /etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs stop should do tahoe stop instead of kill cat twistd.pid``. That's because tahoe stop has a couple of features such as warning the user if the daemon doesn't stop after SIGKILL. See [the code here]source:trunk/src/allmydata/scripts/startstop_node.py?annotate=blame&rev=3ee950f09ed8b7f6cc72a98c26eefe9e02c11d85#L78.

Other than those two things, I didn't see anything strange or objectionable in this patch. Thanks again!

Okay, I just reviewed <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tahoe/tahoe.git;a=blob;f=debian/tahoe-lafs.init;h=13b505fb4b2d4be959e3df7edef02a369a48fc7c;hb=8428876521454b5fd2b0719048caf909c0ab68ee> . Here are my comments. Thank you for working on this patch! I'm excited about making Tahoe-LAFS be a more first-class citizen of the Debian universe. A lot of good can come of this. Thank you for your contribution. I don't understand why `/etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs restart` does `tahoe stop ; sleep 1 ; tahoe start` and `/etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs force-reload` does `tahoe restart`. I think both of those should do `tahoe restart`. I think `/etc/init.d/tahoe-lafs stop` should do `tahoe stop` instead of `kill `cat twistd.pid``. That's because `tahoe stop` has a couple of features such as warning the user if the daemon doesn't stop after SIGKILL. See [the code here]source:trunk/src/allmydata/scripts/startstop_node.py?annotate=blame&rev=3ee950f09ed8b7f6cc72a98c26eefe9e02c11d85#L78. Other than those two things, I didn't see anything strange or objectionable in this patch. Thanks again!

zooko commented

2013-10-01 03:43:49 +00:00

I posted another, much bigger, review to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003 but I'm not copying it into this ticket, so go read that thread.

I posted another, much bigger, review to <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652003> but I'm not copying it into this ticket, so go read that thread.