Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

2008-09-25 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 06:57:07PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report which was filed against the unbound package: #500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons It has been closed by Robert Edmonds [EMAIL

Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

2008-09-25 Thread Robert Edmonds
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

Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

2008-09-25 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:58:41PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: 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