IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

eazy · 2008-04-14 22:44:22

Hi everybody,

after a hour of intensive patching, I'm glad to announce that the freely available Freenet6 IPv6 tunnel broker client is available for Archlinux.
You can install it right from AUR, the package is "gw6c".
This package simplifies the life of newbies who would like to test IPv6, since I've done some changes to provide sane defaults, and joining the IPv6 without any configuration.

The commands below are intended to be run as root.

Installation
Make sure you have the "tun" module loaded.

# modprobe tun

Install the package (i'm using yaourt)

$ yaourt -S gw6c

Run the tunnel broker client

# gw6c

Check the log file for success

# tail /var/log/gw6c.log

Enjoy!

Known bugs
* Does not create a reasonable /etc/rc.d/gw6c script
* Does not support X86-64. Anybody using a 64bit host should try to hack the PKGBUILD and report.

Note to Italian users: Works with Fastweb!

Cheers,
eaZy

zodmaner · 2008-04-15 05:34:59

Thank you for your work, eazy. Will try it out and see how it goes.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-04-15 05:35:23)

bug · 2008-04-15 06:12:21

Thanks! Works like charm. It fixed my problems and saved my hassle. Could get it to work again after it stopped working one day. You should check this though.

namcap:

gw6c E: Dependency detected and not included (gcc-libs) from files ['usr/bin/gw6c']
gw6c W: Dependency included but already satisfied (glibc)
gw6c W: File (man/) exists in a non-standard directory.
gw6c W: File (man/man8/) exists in a non-standard directory.
gw6c W: File (man/man5/) exists in a non-standard directory.
gw6c W: File (man/man5/gw6c.conf.5) exists in a non-standard directory.
gw6c W: File (man/man8/gw6c.8) exists in a non-standard directory.
gw6c W: Directory (var/) is empty
gw6c W: Directory (var/run/) is empty
gw6c W: Directory (var/log/) is empty
gw6c W: Directory (var/run/gw6c/) is empty
gw6c E: Missing custom license directory (usr/share/licenses/gw6c)

eazy · 2008-04-15 07:59:04

Thank you bug,

I've been doing late hacking and I forgot to run namcap on it. As soon as I get home I'm fixing this.
As a sidenote, if you register (free) on go6.net, and set you credentials in /etc/gw6c/gw6c.conf, you'll get a static /128 IPv6 address.

eaZy

eazy · 2008-04-15 18:10:34

gw6c 5.1-2 released.

I fixed the namcap issues (thank you bug ).

Next step... /etc/rc.d/ scripts. I'm looking at those now.

eaZy

eazy · 2008-04-15 18:46:56

gw6c 5.1-3 is out,
with /etc/rc.d/gw6c script, so it's possible to connect to IPv6 at boot.. Nice

anakin · 2008-04-15 21:38:36

Coincidently after such a long debate about how pre-configured packages go against the "Arch Way" you've just put yourself on the spotlight of the community by announcing precisely a pre-configured PKGBUILD on the "Arch Discussion" section of the forum.

Having said that I must also recognize your good patching work on the source code, though obviously the changes you've made to the configuration file aren't welcomed by the majority of us. A post install message hinting about the needed configuration changes would be more reasonable unless the target user is in fact a newbie as you put it.

This is just my two cents in the aftermath of the debate about the pre-configured packages and obviously community isn't core.

eazy · 2008-04-16 07:57:24

anakin wrote:

Coincidently after such a long debate about how pre-configured packages go against the "Arch Way" you've just put yourself on the spotlight of the community by announcing precisely a pre-configured PKGBUILD on the "Arch Discussion" section of the forum.

The upstream Freenet6 client (http://go6.net/4105/download.asp) already provides a configuration, which should be ready to use since it's already preconfigured to connect to anonymous IPv6 gateways.
They only forgot to enable the "anonymous" server section in the configuration file ("server=anon.freenet6.net"), which is patched in my package to enable users to use it without fiddling with this "annoying" "minor" bug.

Do you really think this goes against the Arch Way?

anakin wrote:

Having said that I must also recognize your good patching work on the source code, though obviously the changes you've made to the configuration file aren't welcomed by the majority of us. A post install message hinting about the needed configuration changes would be more reasonable unless the target user is in fact a newbie as you put it.

I thought about adding a message to users how to configure the broker service to registered users, but this is just a improvement I'd like to add over the official package.

By the way, did you really check *which* changes I made, and which *changes* have to be done with the official package to get it run?

I think that the Arch Way says that we must Keep It Simple, not Keep It Difficult If Upstream Is Difficult

My 0.02 euros

eaZy

eazy · 2008-04-16 08:32:06

Ok, I admit I didn't read the thread you were referring to, and now that I've read it I can comment on that.

Yea, I like the Arch Way.
Yea, I moved from Ubuntu to Arch for the Arch Philosophy
Yea, don't touch my configs
But hey, I've just changed a line! (and some other to set the correct paths)

I like the Arch Way, but I hate the zealots and the stalinism we can see in the Debian world (see "Iceweasel").

I going to post the last AUR package for it, with the suggested "improvement" (no patched configs, etc.), and I'm maintaining only a version of it in my personal repository.

Cheers,
eaZy

zodmaner · 2008-04-16 08:33:26

I'm sorry, but have you even tried eazy package out before making that post, anakin? His patch are necessary to get the package to built, let alone running properly. A little "post installation" message is not gonna make this package work.

Also, when did the packages in AUR have anything to do with the debate on patching policy? The debate is about the patching policy on the packages in the main repositories (core, extra). The packages on AUR are maintained by user and don't have anything to do with it.

This have all gone too far. Look, the new patching policy is fine, as long as bug get fix and the package is working properly. If we had to resort to use patch to done that, then so be it. What do you want, a broken package, or a working one using patch?

Seriously, I don't remember the "Arch way" forbid us from patching a package to fix bug or get it to work. KISS doesn't mean we have to be broken and if you have use eazy package, you'll see that he did just that: patching a package to get it to work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Give the man some respect he deserved. eazy have just spent his time making a very nice patch for the package so that it will work and he's sharing it with us for nothing. In state of showing some appreciation, you're telling him that we don't appreciate his work? Who are you and what right you have to say that? If you don't appreciated his work, fine. Don't use his package. Built the thing yourself and see if you can make it work. But don't say that all of us also don't appreciated his work.

If our community treats contributors like this, then I doubt Arch will have any "community" left.

Seriously, the devs better clarify this whole patching thing soon or our community will self-destruct before long.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-04-16 09:55:32)

eazy · 2008-04-16 10:03:56

Thank you, zodmaner.

I think that we should provide upstream configs if they work out of the box, or patch them if the configuration files they provide are useless (i.e. need some changes to work properly), and this is exactly what happened with this package.

If we must follow the Arch Way word by word, we can destroy our community as zodmaner said.

Every guideline has to be taken with a grain of salt.
We're Linux users, not bureaucrats.

eaZy

Last edited by eazy (2008-04-16 10:04:13)

anakin · 2008-04-16 10:07:00

Please don't put a rant tone into the thread, you probably missed my point.

zodmaner wrote:

I'm sorry, but have you even tried eazy package out before making that post, anakin? His patch are necessary to get the package to built, let alone running properly. A little "post installation" message is not gonna make this package work.

I've checked his PKGBUILD line by line. His source code patches are necessary however some changes to the configuration file not only aren't necessary but they go against the spirit like this for instance:

-#log_console=
-#log_stderr=
-#log_file=
-#log_syslog=
+log_console=
+log_stderr=0
+log_file=1
+log_syslog=1

zodmaner wrote:

Also, when did the packages in AUR have anything to do with the debate on patching policy? The debate is about the patching policy on the packages in the main repositories (core, extra). The packages on AUR are maintained by user and don't have anything to do with it.

Once again you seem to have missed something from my post, I said:
"This is just my two cents in the aftermath of the debate about the pre-configured packages and obviously community isn't core." This means that although I didn't agree with his changes to the configuration file I reckon the community repo isn't the core repo. Having said that, good practices from core should in my humble opinion be adopted by the community.
Still it's not about patching, I've welcomed eazy's source code patches, it's about pre-configured packages which is something totally different. His PKGBUILD is indeed a pre-configured package since he changes the default gw6c.conf file.

zodmaner wrote:

Give the man some respect he deserved. eazy have just spent his time making a very nice patch for the package so that it will work and he's sharing it with us for nothing. In state of showing some appreciation, you're telling him that we don't appreciate his work? Who are you and what right you have to say that? If you don't appreciated his work, fine. Don't use his package. Built the thing yourself and see if you can make it work. But don't say that all of us also don't appreciated his work.

I said:
"Having said that I must also recognize your good patching work on the source code..."
He deserved my respect and I acknowledge his efforts. I also said that the majority of us in the community don't appreciate pre-configured patches something you can better realize reading this thread.

In the end of the day I really liked eazy's work and merely tried a constructive comment about an important issue (pre-configured packages) which is actively being discussed by the community. His answer after reading the relevant thread was extremely positive and also constructive avoiding the rant tone truly contributing to the community not only through his PKGBUILD but also with his words.

zodmaner · 2008-04-16 10:29:27

I have read your reply, anakin, and I'm sorry that I may have been too emotional. The misunderstanding is that I believe you are having an issue with eazy's patch, which you have stated in your reply that that was not the case (or am I mistaken?), but more of the fact that his patch also modify the config file.

I've read my previous post, and have to admit that I'm quite rude against you. Please accept my apology.

Regarding eazy package. I still think that the changes he made to the config file in his patch are very minor and not that offensive or intrusive, and that by not including them would make installing this package quite redundant and more troublesome than it's worth.

But for the sake of compromise, what if he agreed to remove those line from his patch and put the instruction to modify the config file or the config file itself some where else, maybe in a post installation message or a wiki article, so that the package would still come with eazy patch applied, but the config file won't get touch. Would that be more acceptable for everyone?

Just a thought, and sorry again for being rude and emotional.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-04-16 10:57:50)

anakin · 2008-04-16 11:37:56

zodmaner wrote:

I have read your reply, anakin, and I'm sorry that I may have been too emotional. The misunderstanding is that I believe you are having an issue with eazy's patch, which you have stated in your reply that that was not the case (or am I mistaken?), but more of the fact that his patch also modify the config file.
I've read my previous post, and have to admit that I'm quite rude against you. Please accept my apology.

You weren't rude, only emotional but I can understand that since in fact eazy put some effort into the patching and I've only acknowledged that in a single line of my post. No apology needed. That's correct, I was only referring to the modifications on the config file.

zodmaner wrote:

Regarding eazy package. I still think that the changes he made to the config file in his patch are very minor and not that offensive or intrusive, and that by not including them would make installing this package quite redundant and more trouble some than it's worth.

I agree with you that the changes to the config file were minor, the problem here is that different people have different opinions on this issue. For some people, namely who comes from Ubuntu or similar distros the packages should come pre-configured with sane defaults so that they work out of the box, whereas for other people (including me and many others) the packages should be totally vanilla, even source code wise let alone configuration. Even if there are serious problems like in this package they should be addressed upstream reporting bugs to the authors rather than fixing them downstream.

Obviously this may not be the most productive approach and certainly having things working out of the box has it's merits but Arch Linux isn't about making things work seamlessly (no matter how strange this may sound for some people), it's about providing the bare minimum platform so that total control is in the hands of the users which are all expected to be able to change configuration files even when they come broken from upstream. In a way Arch Linux is almost only an automation of Linux From Scratch (except some bare stuff like init scripts and things like that) which takes away the burden of installing things manually each time by means of pacman/ABS.

Even if we let the "Arch Way" appart from this conversation the more patching/tweaking is made downstream without at least contacting the authors of the software the more this software will get buggy in the future since some bugs will be unnoticed by many end users.

zodmaner wrote:

But for the sake of compromise, what if he agreed to remove those line from his patch and put the instruction to modify the config file or the config file itself some where else, maybe in a post installation message or a wiki article, so that the package would still come with eazy patch applied, but the config file won't get touch. Would that be more acceptable for everyone?

I'm no one to decide about that. I didn't mean eazy should change a single line from his PKGBUILD, I just gave my opinion on good practices which are followed by the official developers. Obviously things aren't quite like the core repo in unsupported and many other packages don't fully respect the guide lines, that's why only a few make their way into the community or even extra. Having said that, in my opinion only the source code patches should be applied to the source code and a post installation message should alert to a wiki article explaining how to properly configure the client. On top of that the source code issues should also be better accessed and eventually a bug report could be sent to the authors so that it gets fixed upstream in the future. But hey, this is just my two cents.

eazy · 2008-04-16 15:10:09

OK anakin, I understand your point.

In fact you're right (talking about the Arch Philosophy), and you clearly explain how Arch should be and what the Arch Way means.

I love Arch not really for its philosophy, but for the side-effects of it: simple, straight, slim.
But I think that computers are there to help us, not to stay in our way, so this is more like the Ubuntu philosophy.
I mean, I prefer creating a package that you download and install, not a stupid tarball without caring if it's really working. If someone downloads it wants it to work, not to mess with its internals to get it working (apart from developers).

Anyway, following this Ubuntu philosophy leads to the problems Ubuntu has: downstream patches for upstream bugs, impossibility to maintain the patches and the packages, sane defaults that overcomplicate the system and so on.
It's impossible to get the best of the two worlds, so it's right to follow those (Arch) guidelines, since I'm posting a package for it.

As I said in the previous post, I'm creating a "politically correct" package on AUR, and a "human friendly" package in my repository.
The politically correct is different in many ways:
* gw6c is installed in /opt/gw6c/
* the configuration file is in /opt/gw6c/bin/gw6c.conf
* anonymous or registered users have to modify the configuration file to set the server to connect to
* I need to find a way to put the /opt/gw6c/bin/ path in $PATH, like gnome or kde do. Awkward, ugly, I think I have to mess with /etc/profile*. Or keep it there without setting the $PATH.
* filing upstream bug reports

The paths are the one given by the official package (who the hell decided to put the configuration files in bin/ ??), so you can't blame on me for this

eaZy

zodmaner · 2008-04-16 17:08:54

eazy wrote:

The politically correct is different in many ways:
* gw6c is installed in /opt/gw6c/
* the configuration file is in /opt/gw6c/bin/gw6c.conf
* anonymous or registered users have to modify the configuration file to set the server to connect to
* I need to find a way to put the /opt/gw6c/bin/ path in $PATH, like gnome or kde do. Awkward, ugly, I think I have to mess with /etc/profile*. Or keep it there without setting the $PATH.

If you put a package like this on AUR, then I'm sure nobody will use it and in state will flock to use your "human friendly" one in state, so why bother?

You really don't need to take such drastic matter, eazy. Just remove those 8 lines in your patch file that was quoted by anakin and put up a message somewhere for user on how to properly modify the config file should be enough to create a "politically correct" package.

Changing config file location or it's default install location does not constitute as modifying or pre-config a package config file, so do it. In fact, since everyone seems to agreed that the only problem with your package is the 8 lines in your patch that modify the config file, change everything back until the only thing different between your AUR package and your human friendly one is this:

* anonymous or registered users have to modify the configuration file to set the server to connect to

...and you should do just fine.

And don't worry about being "politically incorrect" too much. Like I said, AUR is run by user and are not subjected to the same strict rule as the official repos one. So you don't really need to be that serious about following them. For us user they are just a guide line, not a rule. In fact, if you try and search our AUR repo, you'll see that that is where a lot of packages that required heavy patching to work is currently hosted and a lot of them are more heavy patched and modified then your package.

My bottom line is: Your current package (the "human friendly" one) is more then acceptable on AUR, but if you really want to change it to satisfy the bureaucracy, then just remove part of your patch that modify the config file (however trivial they are) and keep the rest. I'll help create a wiki article to hosted your package's installation instruction for you, if you want. Just please, don't put such broken package on AUR.

I'm sure most users of Arch is sensible enough to see that the changes your made is more then necessary, and won't complains about it. Trust me, they'll be more glad to see a working package then a broken one.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-04-16 17:40:01)

anakin · 2008-04-16 18:41:06

I was about to answer you eazy when I read the last post from zodmaner. I totally agree with zodmaner, his post pretty much sums up what I would say to you. Don't take it that serious please.

My comment was only about your changes to the default gw6c.conf.in file, not about the source patches or file locations. I'm no more or less than any other community member thus my posts alone obviously should not force any modifications to your PKGBUILD, I was rather trying to elucidate you about the problems of pre-configuration in Arch Linux, specially after so much has been said recently.

I shouldn't have to say this but please keep your original version or at least a version where you make all your changes except the unnecessary ones to the config and create a wiki article for that purpose just like zodmaner suggested. Though guide lines and standards are a good thing and should be followed the AUR doesn't enforce them otherwise lots of PKGBUILDs would be discarded.

Keep up your good work and chill out a bit.

Last edited by anakin (2008-04-16 18:43:39)

linfan · 2008-04-18 13:24:32

Personally I don't care much for the philosophical content of this post

However, I have been using gw6c for over a year, but lately it does not work any more. Only kame.net and go6.net are accessible, not ivp6.google.com or many other ipv6 enabled sites, not to mention ipv6.chat.freenode.net.

What has been installed that has screwed up ipv6 internetting and tunneling? Might it be tcp_wrappers? There is a bug about ipv6 on FS.

Greateful for some further light on the work of the left hand workers of arch that not always know what the right hand is doing

linfan · 2008-04-18 23:15:13

Jesus - only today did go6.net inform the following:

Hello all,

The Freenet6 service is down since 2008-04-15.
We're working with Teleglobe to fix the problem and we'll have it back working as soon as possible.
Thank you for your patience.
_________________
Charles Nepveu
Software Developer
Hexago, Inc.
support%go6.net

I almost lost my mind

It is not the first time freenet6 goes down, so be warned.

anakin · 2008-04-19 10:32:58

linfan wrote:

Jesus - only today did go6.net inform the following:
Hello all,
The Freenet6 service is down since 2008-04-15.
We're working with Teleglobe to fix the problem and we'll have it back working as soon as possible.
Thank you for your patience.
_________________
Charles Nepveu
Software Developer
Hexago, Inc.
support%go6.net
I almost lost my mind
It is not the first time freenet6 goes down, so be warned.

After reading your message yesterday I tried the client and noticed that although the tunnel was setup properly I could only reach http://go6.net/ nothing more.

linfan · 2008-04-22 17:00:27

freenet6 seems to be up and running now

linfan · 2008-07-10 18:08:22

The tunnel does not stay connected for more than some 10 minutes or so. It seems to be an issue on many linuces and on go6 there is no solution. gw6c is a very unreliable service.

I would not recommend it.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-14 22:44:22

IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#2 2008-04-15 05:34:59

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#3 2008-04-15 06:12:21

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#4 2008-04-15 07:59:04

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#5 2008-04-15 18:10:34

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#6 2008-04-15 18:46:56

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#7 2008-04-15 21:38:36

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#8 2008-04-16 07:57:24

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#9 2008-04-16 08:32:06

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#10 2008-04-16 08:33:26

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#11 2008-04-16 10:03:56

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#12 2008-04-16 10:07:00

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#13 2008-04-16 10:29:27

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#14 2008-04-16 11:37:56

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#15 2008-04-16 15:10:09

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#16 2008-04-16 17:08:54

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#17 2008-04-16 18:41:06

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#18 2008-04-18 13:24:32

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#19 2008-04-18 23:15:13

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#20 2008-04-19 10:32:58

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#21 2008-04-22 17:00:27

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

#22 2008-07-10 18:08:22

Re: IPv6 tunnel broker client (Freenet6) on Archlinux!!!

Board footer