On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:59:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:48:43PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > 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. > That's etherconf's problem and not a reason to object to a dhcp-client > virtual package. Then you've not got a very useful virtual package - things wanting to use the virtual package still need to go through and support every DHCP client individually only now they won't be expressing that clearly in their dependancies. If you can't depend on dhcp-client and know that you'll be able to do something constructive with the package that satisfies that dependancy then what's the point? I assume we don't want to use the packages to conflict. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
