Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Aurélien GÉRÔME [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:10:51AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. As the (co-)maintainer of 2 IRCd packages and 2 IRC services packages, I completely disagree. Some IRC servers do *not* conflict, so a virtual package is unnecessary. The Conflicts and Provides are orthogonal. Certainly, you can conflict with the same package you provide, but this is not needed here. If they conflict, like ircd-hybrid and dancer-ircd, it is up to the maintainer to manage the conflicts. Yes, or even better to arrange things such that they no longer conflict. Some services, if not all, are designed to work on a specific IRCd. For instance, hybserv is supposed to only run with ircd-hybrid and dancer-services to only run with dancer-ircd. I do *not* want to undertake the maintenance of a services package on other IRC servers that the one for which it is designed. Then in this special case you would continue to depend upon the specific package, rather than the virtual package. Why is this a problem? Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. pgptE3tMQwycZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Michael == Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Why do you think these servers conflict with each other? ... because, generally speaking, the servers will be automatically installed at installation, and if the port is in use, then installation may fail. Also, the server to grab the port first on reboot is largely undefined. Debian really needs infrastructure to manage TCP and UDP ports. Perhaps a bit like update-alternatives, but for ports, not files. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:38:03AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: Wouldn't relay-chat-server or relay-chat-daemon be a better name. I think no, we also call it httpd and not web-server or hypertext-transfer-protocol-server. That's a historical inconsistency which is at odds with the naming scheme used by all the other virtual packages. relay-chat-server would fit in with the scheme much better. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. pgppqvW8Gh1Z0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Brian May writes: Michael == Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Why do you think these servers conflict with each other? ... because, generally speaking, the servers will be automatically installed at installation, and if the port is in use, then installation may fail. Also, the server to grab the port first on reboot is largely undefined. Arguably, starting an IRC server with no user input is a bad idea. For better or worse, IRC servers need a lot of site-local configuration. Otherwise they cannot connect to other servers, the administrator cannot perform oper commands, and so forth. Separately, if port conflicts are worthy of Conflicts:, why do web servers not in general conflict with each other? You can install apache, aolserver, boa, caudium, and probably others on the same machine. On the DNS side, you can install bind, maradns and nsd on the same machine. Given how easy it is to make two IRC, HTTP or DNS servers work sanely side by side, Conflicts between them seem likely to cause more trouble than they save. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Request for virtual package ircd): Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: m-t-a's must conflict because they are required by policy to provide a sendmail program at a fixed filesystem location. I was about to say the same thing earlier, but then realized that we *could* deal with that via alternatives. And there's actually some appeal to that in some very limited situations. When I changed from smail to exim on chiark, I used --force-conflicts to install both, so that smail could empty its queue while exim handled new messages. This worked rather well. I have no idea whether it would work nowadays; things are always much more complicated now ... Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Hi, On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:10:51AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. As the (co-)maintainer of 2 IRCd packages and 2 IRC services packages, I completely disagree. Some IRC servers do *not* conflict, so a virtual package is unnecessary. If they conflict, like ircd-hybrid and dancer-ircd, it is up to the maintainer to manage the conflicts. Some services, if not all, are designed to work on a specific IRCd. For instance, hybserv is supposed to only run with ircd-hybrid and dancer-services to only run with dancer-ircd. I do *not* want to undertake the maintenance of a services package on other IRC servers that the one for which it is designed. I file now the bug against debian-policy and say thank you in advance for your answer. For what my opinion is worth on the matter, I engage the maintainers of debian-policy to discard this bug. Thanks. Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: It's also possible to run multiple FTP servers, each listening on a different port, but all the packaged ftp daemons Conflicts: ftp-server. That is bad, IMO. (and chance to raise my opinion about virtual packages ;) ) Conflicts tag is used overmuch. Sometimes I want to have more than one ftp-server or mail-transport-agent installed but Conflicts tag does not allow that. I know that inexperienced user or admin have benefit from Conflicts (and some other tags) and virtual packages but experienced ones have problem with them. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On 12/10/06 at 00:10 +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: Hello, as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. Those packages should not depend on ircd anyway, because the service and the ircd can run on different systems. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Those packages should not depend on ircd anyway, because the service and the ircd can run on different systems. Ok, this is a good argument. I think the oppinion is more or less clear: Some people think it would be a nice idea, BUT it can be also a problem because some people want more than one Ircd on a system. I only wanted to ask you for your oppinion, so thank you all! :-) -- .''`. Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud user of Debian unstable `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:10:51AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: Hello, as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual I don't think so. If they all are listening on different parts, what's the problem? I'm concerned about going overboard with conflicts. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:14:19AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote:
Ok, this is a good argument.
I think the oppinion is more or less clear:
Some people think it would be a nice idea, BUT it can be also a problem
because some people want more than one Ircd on a system.
I only wanted to ask you for your oppinion, so thank you all! :-)
Maybe what you're looking for is a Provides: irc-server in the
ircd packages and a Recommends: irc-server or Suggests:
irc-server in the service packages that potentially benefit from
(but do not necessarily require) a locally-installed ircd to which
to connect? That way when someone installs the services via, say,
aptitude or synaptic, an ircd is pulled in automatically (if one is
not already installed) or at least mentioned as being suggested, but
multiple ircd packages providing irc-server could still be installed
on the same system since there is no conflict expressed.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP([EMAIL PROTECTED]); IRC([EMAIL PROTECTED]); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
MUD([EMAIL PROTECTED]:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Jeremy Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:14:19AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: Ok, this is a good argument. I think the oppinion is more or less clear: Some people think it would be a nice idea, BUT it can be also a problem because some people want more than one Ircd on a system. I only wanted to ask you for your oppinion, so thank you all! :-) Maybe what you're looking for is a Provides: irc-server in the ircd packages and a Recommends: irc-server or Suggests: irc-server in the service packages that potentially benefit from (but do not necessarily require) a locally-installed ircd to which to connect? That way when someone installs the services via, say, aptitude or synaptic, an ircd is pulled in automatically (if one is not already installed) or at least mentioned as being suggested, but multiple ircd packages providing irc-server could still be installed on the same system since there is no conflict expressed. That seems fine to me. Arguably, as mentioned in a different post the ftp servers should do the smae thing instead of conflicting with each other. Mail-tansport-agent should also do the same thing, using the alternatives system to handle the multiple 'sendmail' binaries. Conflicts on a virtual package by a package that provides it is generally questionable because often these is no valid technical reason to restrict the user to only one of the providers of that virtual package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:54:15AM +0200, Milan P. Stanic wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: It's also possible to run multiple FTP servers, each listening on a different port, but all the packaged ftp daemons Conflicts: ftp-server. That is bad, IMO. (and chance to raise my opinion about virtual packages ;) ) Conflicts tag is used overmuch. Sometimes I want to have more than one ftp-server or mail-transport-agent installed but Conflicts tag does not allow that. I know that inexperienced user or admin have benefit from Conflicts (and some other tags) and virtual packages but experienced ones have problem with them. m-t-a's must conflict because they are required by policy to provide a sendmail program at a fixed filesystem location. While it's possible that port conflicts were part of the original rationale for m-t-a conflicts, this has definitely not been adhered to consistently in Debian for other services, and I think there are enough use cases for installing more than one daemon providing the same service that we /should not/ attempt to apply such a rule for virtual packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: m-t-a's must conflict because they are required by policy to provide a sendmail program at a fixed filesystem location. I was about to say the same thing earlier, but then realized that we *could* deal with that via alternatives. And there's actually some appeal to that in some very limited situations. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Am Donnerstag 12 Oktober 2006 00:10 schrieb Mario Iseli: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. Wouldn't relay-chat-server or relay-chat-daemon be a better name. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. Only if they really work with _all_ of them, even new ones. Really? HS pgpoMQmHHqo3D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Oct 12, Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. Services do not need to depend on a daemon. It's not clear which problem an ircd virtual package would solve. Unless you can present a better rationale I oppose to create one. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Marco d'Itri wrote: On Oct 12, Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. I'm not sure that multiple IRC-daemons logically conflict with other, given that you can configure them to run on different ports. In fact, IIRC, I've had more than one ircd-like package installed on a single system in the past. Perhaps you could share more information about what the virtual package would allow? tony signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:38:03AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: Wouldn't relay-chat-server or relay-chat-daemon be a better name. I think no, we also call it httpd and not web-server or hypertext-transfer-protocol-server. Only if they really work with _all_ of them, even new ones. Really? Yes, there are services which work with all ircds, anope is one of them. Poorwise it's not in Debian (anyone knows why? license issues? maybe I'm gonna have a look at it). Regards -- .''`. Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud user of Debian unstable `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
Mario Iseli writes: Hello, as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. I file now the bug against debian-policy and say thank you in advance for your answer. Some people -- developers such as myself and some server hosting companies -- find it useful to have several ircds installed on one computer for testing purposes. Artificially introducing conflicts hurts these users. Why do you think these servers conflict with each other? There are virtual packages for many network services, but not all -- for example, there are no http-server or dns-server virtual packages. The services with virtual packages almost universally use well-known ports and (except for ftp-server) it does not make sense to run several of them on one machine. In contrast, IRC, HTTP and DNS are often running several instances on different ports or network interfaces. Which IRC services work in general with all ircds? Anope is the most compatible one I know, but most IRC services packages that I have seen support just one or two variants of server-to-server protocol. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/11/06 17:50, tony mancill wrote: Marco d'Itri wrote: On Oct 12, Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as described in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt I announce here my idea of the virtual package ircd. When I count correctly are at the moment 7 different IRC-daemons in Debian and they logically conflict with each other. So I would think an official virtual package would be a fine solution. There are also IRC services which work in general with all ircds, so it would be easier if those packages also could only depend on ircd. I'm not sure that multiple IRC-daemons logically conflict with other, given that you can configure them to run on different ports. In fact, IIRC, I've had more than one ircd-like package installed on a single system in the past. Perhaps you could share more information about what the virtual package would allow? It's also possible to run multiple FTP servers, each listening on a different port, but all the packaged ftp daemons Conflicts: ftp-server. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFLX+RS9HxQb37XmcRAhoiAJ9dZSyrlMXo/hBj00KeGe2iy9RXGQCfXAvH plZVoE5N6/GDwYTkKPSTkWQ= =IWta -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for virtual package ircd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/11/06 17:58, Mario Iseli wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:38:03AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: Wouldn't relay-chat-server or relay-chat-daemon be a better name. I think no, we also call it httpd and not web-server or hypertext-transfer-protocol-server. The ftpd virtual package is ftp-server. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFLX/fS9HxQb37XmcRAsS9AKCb/aCGKkbS7xwXvc2ddPbJGLGspgCcDy/z rDq/BaRPWRSR7dr7i0A4auo= =YKNi -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
