[pkg-lua-devel] Intent to upload prosody_0.8.2-1~bpo60+1, dh-lua_13~bpo60+1 and lua-ldap_1.1.0-1-geeac494-3~bpo60+1

[Luca Capello]

Hi there!

On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:21:12 +0200, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 9 May 2012 11:37, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:33:42 +0200, Matthew Wild wrote:
>>> Our upgrade-safety
>>> includes things in prosody-modules. Having a significant portion of
>>> users running code outside our control would make us cry.
>>
>> The problem I see here is that there *are* already users running code
>> outside of your control:
>>
>
> If your point is about LDAP, yes. However the issue is not as simple
> as Stefan's mod_auth_ldap going "over a year without review". It *was*
> reviewed, the problem was that it worked differently to the one in
> prosody-modules. There are apparently multiple schools of thought
> around how to do LDAP "correctly", and they don't seem to agree. I
> know because I discussed it in depth at the time.

Thank you for the explanation about Stefan's version and please excuse
me if I was a bit too rude, I did not want to criticize how the Prosody
developers work.

> One problem is that I am not an "LDAP person", and all the LDAP people
> I speak to have very strong, and different, opinions.

I am not an "LDAP person" either, but recently I have experimenting more
and more with that and I should say that the overall situation is sort
of a mess.  As you wrote, there is not an unique opinion on how things
should be done, just see how Cyrus SASL is configured WRT PADL and
Arthur de Jong's PAM modules:

  <http://www.padl.com/OSS/nss_ldap.html>
  <http://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd/>

For Prosody, given that the other LDAP supported configuration is via
Cyrus SASL, I should say that assuring "compatibility" with that is the
way to go.  This is how I "fixed" Rob's LDAP plugins ;-)

> I have yet to
> review Rob's latest LDAP plugins properly. They seem very good quality
> code-wise (as expected, Rob is an experienced Lua developer). His
> plugins are also more extensive. It's quite likely we'll be moving
> those to prosody-modules, and eventually supply them with Prosody when
> they are proven stable. I have already told Rob that I plan to work on
> this after the release when I have more time.

Thank you for the update.

> As for people running code that is beyond our control - I'm absolutely
> fine with that. But most important is that we have no obligation to
> maintain compatibility with such code. If the Prosody Debian package
> comes supplied with unofficial LDAP modules that are incompatible with
> official modules that are later released, that *is* of concern to me.

Debian is interested in smooth upgrades as well, so am I, which means
that any official package not working across upgrades is broken and must
be fixed.  And as I wrote in a previous email, what is of the same
importance is documentation about the upgrade process.

>> Please note that I wanted to contact prosody-dev before any other email,
>> while merging Stefan's and Rob's work into my local prosody-modules,
>> minimizing the changes and also providing tests (which I did anyway,
>> extensively if I may).  The fact that prosody-dev is on Google Groups
>> and it seems it requires a Google account simply refrained me to do that
>> (no Google here, sorry).
>
> That is not the case, you can use any address - I certainly wouldn't
> use any mailing list host that required otherwise! It's possible that
> Google don't make this so clear when viewing the list there, but on

I was aware of the links from the Prosody website, but, as you wrote, on
the Google Groups pages there are big 'Sign in to reply' buttons and
From the Prosody website following the 'Visit this group' link and then
the 'Join this group' one brings up the Google login page.  And there is
nowhere information on how to post, instead you need to go to the 'About
this group' page to find the email address:

  <https://groups.google.com/group/prosody-dev/about>

> our site you can easily subscribe and unsubscribe any email address,
> see http://prosody.im/discuss

The 'subscribe' button on that page links to a dead URL (s/.co.uk/com/):

  <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/prosody-dev/boxsubscribe?email=luca%40pca.it&sub=Subscribe>

I am now subscribed, so I will continue the discussion there, thank you
for the information!

> We also don't require Google accounts for push access to
> prosody-modules. Just email me privately as usual if you want access
> and say you don't have a Google account.

Thank you for the offer, continuing the discussion on prosody-dev we
will see if I can be of any help.

> PS. But Google *is* very convenient... ;)

We diverge here, otherwise I would not have installed my own XMPP
server.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lua-devel/attachments/20120511/a1f46282/attachment.pgp>