On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:50:33AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:10 pm, Charles Lepple wrote: > > Heh. Maybe you could "borrow" the aptproxy userid. > > Why not just add another? > > > Actually, along these lines, I wonder if there's a precedent for > > conflicting with another package with a server that binds to the same > > port. After all, the default for both apt-proxy and approx is to listen > > on port 9999. (Of course, you can always reconfigure one or the other > > to listen on a different port, whereas most other conflicts arise from > > two packages that have staked out the same portion of the filesystem > > namespace.) > > That was actually one of my silent gripes, if you will. It really should > bind to another port by default, like, say, 9998. Both are by no means > standard port numbers, so why create conflict?
Because many approx users are likely to be apt-proxy users, and have lines like "deb http://foo:9999/..."; in sources.list files on multiple client machines. If the default isn't 9999, you have to track down all those files and edit them, but if it's 9999, it's a "drop in" replacement. I've just posted a message on debian-devel asking for advice on whether to make the packages conflict for this reason. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
