FS#25097 - [initscripts] Deprecated Function Message on Boot

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Sunday, 10 July 2011, 19:21 GMT
Last edited by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Thursday, 14 July 2011, 12:14 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Kernel
Status Closed
Assigned To Tom Gundersen (tomegun)
Architecture i686
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
During boot up there is a message displayed regarding a deprecated funtion. However, it fails to name that function.

Additional info:
* package version(s)
* config and/or log files etc.


Steps to reproduce:
Boot computer.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Tom Gundersen (tomegun)
Thursday, 14 July 2011, 12:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Deferred
Additional comments about closing:  PEBCAK
Comment by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Tuesday, 12 July 2011, 09:57 GMT
Could you please attach /var/log/boot ?
Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Tuesday, 12 July 2011, 14:28 GMT
Check the current boot section in attached file.
   boot (6.7 KiB)
Comment by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi (djgera) - Tuesday, 12 July 2011, 23:59 GMT
"This functionality is deprecated.
Please refer to /etc/rc.conf on how to define a single wired
connection, or use a utility such as netcfg."

http://www.archlinux.org/news/deprecation-of-net-tools/
Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 02:45 GMT
1. It fails to say exactly what is deprecated, which is an unnecessary worry.
2. It therefore forces the user on a wild goose chase to fix something that may or may not need fixing, and may or may not be even used.
3. Your link was not include in the message, so it probably has no bearing on the issue.

Let's try again. Let's please find a way to repair the poor and misleading choice of text during boot. That way users will know what the heck is going on. That is, unless you know of a way to stop the boot-up process and dial into an Internet connection at that stage of the process so the user can look at a provided link to explain the gobbledygook. And do all that automatically.

Oh, and by the way, one can look at /etc/rc/conf all friggin day long and not see any connection to the message.

Thanks.
Comment by Kevin (anonymous_user) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 03:01 GMT
Based on this part: "how to define a single wired connection, or use a utility such as netcfg" it should at least be clear that the problem is with the network setup. Also if the user merged the rc.conf.pacnew into rc.conf then they would likely not encounter this error.
Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 03:16 GMT
The first part is based upon an assumption and hardly up to the exacting standards of computer technology. And actually, one can as easily assume that something is wrong with the rc.conf. Where did it tell the user to merge rc.conf.pacnew with rc.conf?
Comment by Kevin (anonymous_user) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 03:24 GMT
When upgrading initscripts, pacman should have given a message about rc.conf.pacnew. Actually merging the file; however, is a user's responsibility.
Comment by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi (djgera) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 03:56 GMT Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 05:08 GMT
Perhaps it didn't give the message. Perhaps the message could have been missed with the other 150 updates. Who knows? But one thing is clear; this bug report is about a non-sensical message during boot up. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any other message or any other procedure.

At the end of the day, either the person who inserted this erroneous message should own up to it and correct it, or everyone can just pretend that nothing is wrong. The first is the correct choice.

It is grossly unfair for those responsible to keep passing the buck back to the user. This is bad programming, plain and simple.
Comment by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi (djgera) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 07:07 GMT
Design principle.

Otherwise try Ubuntu may be fit better for you. ;)
Comment by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 09:19 GMT
Thanks to Kevin and Gerard for explaining what is happening.

@KitchM: Thanks for the report, we can change the error message, not a problem (but for the future, I'd suggest being a bit nicer to the guys trying to help). By the way, even if Gerardo's link was not referenced in the message, it exactly describes what is going on.

What do you think about this?

"Your network configuration is deprecated.
Please refer to /etc/rc.conf on how to define a single wired
connection, or use a utility such as netcfg."

?
Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 16:55 GMT
@tomegun
Gerardo was very rude to me by stating the error message and giving a link without any explanation, and then on top of that wanting to close the task before the reporter of the error was able to get any satisfaction at all. There is no doubt that people like that should never be interacting with the public. They have no sympathy for those who go out of their way to report problems.

If his link describes what is going on, perhaps he should have been more courteous and stated that. And more correctly had offered to explain it himself. He did neither. He just wanted to close the task.

Further, your message has been responded to above, but I'll repeat here. There is nothing in rc.conf to explain what is going on.

Kevin misses the point by suggesting the bad wording is the fault of the user. That's not very nice at all. His attitude is offensive.

And your comments are not supportive. In fact, you suggest that users go somewhere else. Hardly friendly.

I have been nothing but civil about it. I stated the truth when I explained that it was bad programming, and it remains so today.

The message fails to take in the normal possibilities of usage. Your edit still worries the user with a warning but fails to give the solution. I still see nothing when I edit rc.conf. Don't blame the user for that.

Oh, and by the way, is Arch now getting away from direct editing of files? Why recommend a utility program.
Comment by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Wednesday, 13 July 2011, 18:00 GMT
@KitchM:

A few comments:

"There is nothing in rc.conf to explain what is going on."

The intention is not to explain what is going on in rc.conf. A proper explanation of what is happening is given in the install message (see /var/log/pacman.log if you missed it), as well as in the news item linked to above.

The intention with the deprecation warning is to 1) alert the user to the fact that something is wrong (your network config is deprecated) and 2) suggest solutions (use the new rc.conf syntax which is explained in the new rc.conf (possibly rc.conf.pacnew on your system); or use a different network daemon such as netcfg).

I agree that it was not clear what exactly was deprecated, so I suggested to add that to the warning. Do you still find it unclear? Do you have a better suggestion?

"And your comments are not supportive. In fact, you suggest that users go somewhere else. Hardly friendly."

What are you referring to here? It has not been my intention to be unfriendly...

"I stated the truth when I explained that it was bad programming, and it remains so today."

This has nothing to do with programming. The problem is simply that the warning message is unclear, which we should try to fix.

"Oh, and by the way, is Arch now getting away from direct editing of files?"

No.

"Why recommend a utility program."

I assume you refer to netcfg? This is no more a utility program than the traditional networking script. The only difference is that it is actively maintained, and has more features. You configure it by editing its config files.

For a thorough discussion regarding the deprecation of net-tools (which is the cause of all of this), refer to the news item above, and discussions on arch-dev-public/arch-general.



Lastly:

If you find Gerardo's message rude I think there is a communications problem. I did not find it rude at all, it simply contained all the information both you and I needed to figure out what was going on (for me: the misleading message, for you: the explanation of the message).

Also, Kevin's message was not at all offensive, but helpful (not only to this bug, but also to other problems you might encounter in the future): When updating using pacman it is assumed that the user sorts through *.pacnew/*.pacsave files, otherwise things might not work as intended.

We are all doing this for fun, so please assume that people have the best intentions and try to be nice to them (even if you disagree).
Comment by Mr. K. (KitchM) - Thursday, 14 July 2011, 01:32 GMT
@tomegun
If people are having "fun" then they should show that with their communication. Please don't assume that everyone sees things the same way. That is a huge fundamental error in interpersonal relations.

Also, I came here for help, not criticism. It is expected that people will be helpful and apologetic for the product not being as good as it should be. The presumption is that there is a product error. Clearly, that proper attitude was not displayed here. The displayed attitude is counterproductive to a help, wiki or bug support area.

If they can't handle it, then they don't need to be involved, and indeed should not be. Never, ever blame it on the user. That would only underscore the problem.
------------------
Your response to the error message directions shows part of the problem. You wrote:
"The intention is not to explain what is going on in rc.conf. A proper explanation of what is happening is given in the install message (see /var/log/pacman.log if you missed it), as well as in the news item linked to above. "

If it isn't there for directions, then what the heck is it there for? Why direct the user to look into rc.conf? The implication is that it is indeed to direct the person to rc.conf for some sort of answer, else it wouldn't say that. Perhaps your intent does not come thru your words as you desire, but it seems very confusing to state something that was not included in the message in the first place. That is further confusing the issue of a less than helpful warning message.

Please note that I was correct in my assessment of the issue. It is as simple as that.
-----------------
"The intention with the deprecation warning is to 1) alert the user to the fact that something is wrong (your network config is deprecated) and 2) suggest solutions (use the new rc.conf syntax which is explained in the new rc.conf (possibly rc.conf.pacnew on your system); or use a different network daemon such as netcfg)."

I never disagreed with the intent of the first item, only that it did not say anything as specific as you stated. For instance, it does not use the word "network". I take exception to your second item, however. The message did not suggest any solution other than what I already pointed out was of no value. I remain correct in my assessment of that as well.

By the way, why didn't the message come after the network daemon line? That would have been more telling. I thought it had something to do with GDM. One does not expect a notice about an issue until that particular daemon or program comes up.
-------------------
"I assume you refer to netcfg? This is no more a utility program than the traditional networking script. The only difference is that it is actively maintained, and has more features. You configure it by editing its config files.

By the way, when did the netcfg change from a utility to a daemon? From the author's web site, "Netcfg -- GUI interface for managing network configuration". We usually call these utilities, but whatever.
-------------------
"What are you referring to here? It has not been my intention to be unfriendly... "

I'm sorry about that poor syntax, and please forgive me for not being specific. I did not mean the singular "you", but rather the corporate "you". I should have been clearer, and I do apologize. I'm still smarting from the inappropriate suggestion, "Otherwise try Ubuntu may be fit better for you."
--------------------
"This has nothing to do with programming. The problem is simply that the warning message is unclear, which we should try to fix. "

Please don't quibble about the word "programming". It has and will always include whatever is inserted in any code of program or script. Or should I have said "annotation". I doubt very much, however, that any other person but a person doing something to the code of the script who would have annotated that poor message into the code.
-------------------
Kevin's post:
"Based on this part: "how to define a single wired connection, or use a utility such as netcfg" it should at least be clear that the problem is with the network setup. Also if the user merged the rc.conf.pacnew into rc.conf then they would likely not encounter this error."

Oh, it should be clear, should it? And if it is not clear to me, what is the implication?

"If the user merged" the files? Why would they? But still no guarantee? Then why state it?

At the end of the day, you may wish to explain why that was posted. It say it was less than helpful to me is an understatement and in no way solves the problem of the warnings poor wording. (Why can't people stay on topic?) That's like responding with a link. Without an explanation, that sort of thing is not proper and exhibits presumptive thinking. It is insulting and wastes the time of those who asking for help.

Please also note that only on the ninth comment did I display any frustration. Perhaps the one asking for special consideration for assuming the best intentions should do the same toward the poster who brought the error to light. What do you think? Maybe the Arch people can learn to be nice to people, even if they disagree.
---------------
As to the suggestion of a message with correct wording, that is easy once one understands the issue. I did not, but believe I do now. At least to a point.

"Warning: Your network configuration, as based upon net-tools, is being deprecated. The settings in rc.conf need to be changed, and it is suggested to use either iproute2, yp-tools, networkmanager or netcfg to create the necessary settings."

Make sure the message follows the applicable spot in the process; not leads it. Also note that it is being deprecated, not that one's current configuration will not work for some time. Those are two distinct and separate points.

Let me point out that the explanation that had been posted and linked from the home page is extremely confusing since we Arch users have been trained to edit everything by hand and customize the network configuration manually. I, for one of many I'm sure, believe that I have never directly used net-tools for the configuration of the network. I can't even remember when I have ever used net-tools, defined as "A collection of programs that form the base set of the NET-3 networking distribution for the Linux operating system".

Is it correct that you people (the corporate "you") might possibly have some insight the rest of us does not? Something to think about.
Comment by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Thursday, 14 July 2011, 12:14 GMT
@Michael:

Mostly TL;DR. However, I got a few comments:

Don't expect anyone to be apologetic about an extremely minor issue in a piece of software that you received for free. I have been trying to work with you on this one, and I'm usually quite patient, but now you are really starting to rub me the wrong way.

"what the heck is it there for?"
Watch your language. This I explained in the next paragraph. It is meant to direct the user to one possible solution (which is different from an explanation). You seem not to understand this solution, but that is out of scope for this discussion.

"Oh, it should be clear, should it? And if it is not clear to me, what is the implication?"
The implication is clear, or would you like to have it explained?

""If the user merged" the files? Why would they?"
That's how things work in Arch. You merge your pacnew files. If you don't want to use the software in the way it was intended, you should expect things to be confusing.

"From the author's web site"
When we refer to 'netcfg', we mean the software you get by "pacman -S netcfg", not <http://netcfg.sourceforge.net/>.


Regarding the warning: I'd rather not refer to net-tools/iptoools2 in the warning itself as they are implementation details, and I believe the usage of the word "deprecated" is correct. As I already suggested, I'll change the first line to indicate that we are talking about the networking settings.

I'll close this for now as 1) it is really a non-issue 2) the discussion is way out of hand and 3) I'll probably get around to implementing the request eventually.

Loading...