On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:45:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:26:08AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > > Suppose `Provides: dhcp-client' is added to udhcpc. Does it > > also need to provide a script, /sbin/dhcp-client, which invokes > > udhcpc with the correct options, and conflict with the other > > DHCP clients? > > Not necessarily, no. A virtual package tells you what the *package* is. > It's the job of alternatives to deal with files in the filesystem.
We need a common interface to avoid duplication between etherconf and ifupdown (and to allow new clients to be used without having to change ifupdown). Would the best way to achieve this be for each client to provide an alternative for /sbin/dhcp-client, with some agreed-upon interface and semantics? > I'm not saying there isn't value in having some generic dhcp-client > command-line interface that Debian can define; I'm just saying it's not > necessary for the specification of a virtual package, and I don't think > etherconf needs it, either. Suppose that no common interface is provided: if etherconf doesn't know how to invoke udhcpc, then having udhcpc provide dhcp-client will break etherconf's DHCP support. Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
