OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du jeudi 19 juin 2008, vers 15:36, "Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait :
>> I'm setting severity to normal, as port conflict is quite common (e.g. >> the HTTP servers). But I don't think we should make it as conflicting > The port conflict was not the reason for setting the severity to > serious, but the failing installation was. If you think that such port > conflicts are quite common, it becomes even more important to prevent > the package installation from failing on this. > I personally think that lowering the severity on this bug is a major > mistake - especially if, as you state yourself, the installation failure > is expected to appear often. However, I leave it up to you to increase > the severity back to it's native state for such bugs. Hi Mario! If you look at Apache or lighttpd, none of them is trying to detect the other to avoid to start. Neither racoon nor OpenSWAN try to detect the other on start. They all fail to install if the other one is installed and running. This is a sane behaviour since the user knows that the installation failed because there is a problem on his system. He should solve the problem (stop the other IKE daemon) and reconfigure the package. I don't see how to avoid this. We cannot rely on the presence of another package to know if another daemon is running. We cannot rely on its presence in the processus table since it could listen on another interface. For example, with lighttpd, the bug is wishlist and wontfix: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383425 -- En effet, les FAQ sont des "conseils d'utilisation" et non des règles à respecter. -+-BC in <http://neuneu.mine.nu> Si tu veux du CU, retourne à la FAQ-+-
pgpxqcZwsGU0a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
