Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-23 Thread Micha Lenk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 retitle 609864 override: smcroute:net/extra reassign 609864 ftp.debian.org thanks Hi Julien, hi Antonin, Am 13.01.2011 12:18, schrieb Julien BLACHE: The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and leave pimd at Priority:

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-14 Thread Micha Lenk
Hi all, On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:59:56AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote: The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can be installed at the same time either. They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast routing table (MRT), which

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-14 Thread Julien BLACHE
Micha Lenk mi...@debian.org wrote: Hi, I think the core point is: If the *default configuration* of the multicast routing packages in question cause access to the MRT, then it should conflict with other packages (which do so in their default configuration too). The default configuration can

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Antonin Kral
Package: smcroute Version: 0.94.1-1 Severity: normal Hi, I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as conflict to pimd. Both packages are currently 'optional', so adding the conflict violates policy:

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Micha Lenk
Hi Antonin, On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:37:36AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote: I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as conflict to pimd. This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Julien BLACHE
Micha Lenk mi...@debian.org wrote: Hi, This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that both smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :) A multicast routing daemon is a daemon that

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Micha Lenk
Hi Julien, On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:18:49PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that both smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :) A

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Julien BLACHE
Micha Lenk mi...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Thus I maintain my suggestion to add Provides:/Conflicts: dependencies to a virtual package (e.g. 'multicast-routing-daemon', but feel free to suggest another name). You make a valid point wrt the kernel interface and I fully concur. The proper thing

Bug#609864: smcroute: Request for changing priority to extra

2011-01-13 Thread Antonin Kral
Hi all, thanks for a nice lift off. * Julien BLACHE jbla...@debian.org [2011-01-13 18:44] wrote: Good; priority should be given to a real mc routing daemon, ie what the user expects to get when she installs multicast-routing-daemon. This will definitely work for me. The pimd/xorp situation