On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 04:48:16PM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> On Mon May 27, 2002 at 06:30:13PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> > So sprach Yves Duret am 2002-05-27 um 18:16:23 +0200 :
> > > so let me know if i put back vsftpd to read /etc/ftpusers instead of
>/etc/vsftpd/ftpusers
> >
> > Hm, why not make it an alternative or a symlink, just like /etc/aliases
> > is a symlink to /etc/postfix/aliases?
>
> Why? How many people do you think will have wu-ftpd and vsftpd
> installed at the same time? If wu-ftpd provides /etc/ftpusers, and
> vsftpd does, that's not a big deal...
>
ho hum proftpd and wu-ftpd conflict currently anyway ...
/etc/ftpusers should make them conflict anyway but that's not too intuitive
if you don't make it explicit
> I really doubt anyone will have two different FTP servers installed.
>
> One could easily have wu-ftpd and vsftpd provide ftpserver or
> something, then put for the LSB a requires on ftpserver (leave proftpd
> out of the fix, or have proftpd also provide a 0 byte ftpusers file also).
So proftpd is not compliant. It's up to the proftpd authors to make it
compliant with the LSB, but my opinion is that we should not try and introduce
a file which doesn't contain anything(which does not have anything to do with
proftpd certainly!) inside proftpd just to make it compliant.
-- Geoff.
