Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > At least in three cases (ftpd, httpd, radius, telnetd) currently is > used a virtual package. So probably it is the most appropriate choice > in respect with current policy.
there are two protocol speaking over 53/udp; the recursive service (rd==1) offered by recursors to stub resolvers, and the authoritative service (rd==0) offered by authorities to recursors. bind provides both implementations in a single process image in a single package. stub clients (dig, nslookup, etc) are provided in a separate 'dnsutils' package. powerdns provides both implementations in separate process images in separate packages. powerdns does not provide any stub clients. djbdns provides both implementations in separate process images in a single package. stub clients (dnsip, dnsname, etc) are provided in the same package. unbound only provides an implementation of the rd==1 service. a stub client (unbound-host) is provided in a separate package. nsd/nsd3 only provides an implementation of the rd==0 service. this diversity is approximately comparable to the diversity of packages providing the httpd virtual package. and no packages providing httpd conflict with httpd. as there are no packages in the archive which have a requirement for a locally installed authoritative or recursive dns server, there is no need for a virtual package. > The point is that with the *default* configuration unbound does not > complete the installation when another name server is installed. And > this could be considered a serious bug. ok. you would prefer that the unbound postinst script ignore invoke-rc.d errors? -- Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
