On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:10:23PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:59PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:47:20PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
In short, a summary (admittedly from my point of view) follows:
In a discussion on whether network
On Sun, 03 Oct 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, try this on for size:
How many network services do you get if you are doing if you decide to
install cfs?
How many if you decide to install crossfire-sounds?
[Aside: obviously there's a difference between not accepting a connection
and
Why not implement a system similar to that in Irix ( and a few other sysv
style systems ), and use a 'chkconfig' type setup..
Irix implements it with a config directory (/etc/config), which contains
files with the same name as the init script or app, and contains a single
word .. 'on' or 'off' ..
* Terry == Terry Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry so, you can issue:
Terry chkconfig postgresql on
Terry /etc/init.d/postgresql start
Terry chkconfig postgresql off
I don't know if I understand you correctly, but does this mean, that
the question whether a init.d script would start the
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 08:06:10PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i show no regard for those who demonstrate they are fools. i show
contempt for those who demonstrate that they are annoying fools. guess
which category you fall into.
Ok, try this on for size:
How many network services do you get
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In any case, I fail to see how pressing `_' in dselect before any
unnecessary daemons are installed could possibly be less secure than
saying No, I don't want services activated by default and then
installing them anyway.
How long
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Terry Katz wrote:
Why not implement a system similar to that in Irix ( and a few other sysv
style systems ), and use a 'chkconfig' type setup..
Irix implements it with a config directory (/etc/config), which contains
files with the same name as the init script or app,
Looking back on it .. I guess the chkconfig idea wasn't as good as I was
originally thinking .. Irix has been the main OS at my company until
recently when I started moving the apps over to high end Linux boxes, and
have gotten used to the chkconfig setup .. (which serves more purposes than
just
The Doctor What [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not believe that any network daemon should automatically start
grabbing resources without asking. By installing a package, I only
consent to commiting disk space and the resoureses needed to get it
actually on the disk. Anything beyond that
Just to make sure we are all clear here:
I have cc'ed the listmaster and I am angry and insulted. On the flip
side, I am trying very hard to be calm and collected and (most importantly
in my mind) fair. The subject is deliberatly melodramatic.
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:47:20PM +1000, Craig
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:38:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I'd like to propose something else: until the packages provide proper
debconf (or whatever) support which would configure the port and other
settings for the daemon, let's keep the Provides:+Conflicts: scheme we
have been using so
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:20:41AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
it isn't useful to run the vtund server until it is configured. there
is no standard configuration which is suitable for shipping as a
default - it MUST be customised for each site, each tunnel must be setup
individually.
When
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:39PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
I took care in my message above to remove anything offensive towards
Craig. Unfortunately Craig didn't do the same.
garbage. you went out of your way to be offensive. to quote the opening
line of your message:
Excuse
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
Excuse me. I work for TurboLinux.
the implication here is that you know what you are talking about because
you work for a real (i.e. commercial) linux distribution.
Either that, or you're attributing an attitude to him that doesn't exist.
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 12:46:46PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:39PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
I took care in my message above to remove anything offensive towards
Craig. Unfortunately Craig didn't do the same.
garbage. you went out of your way to be
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 12:46:46PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
Excuse me. I work for TurboLinux.
the implication here is that you know what you are talking about because
you work for a real (i.e. commercial) linux distribution.
When in fact the opposite is true? :-)
Hamish
--
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:59PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:47:20PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
In short, a summary (admittedly from my point of view) follows:
In a discussion on whether network daemons should do one of the following:
a) Simply start up,
No, this is silly. When you install a package, it is for use. If you
don't intend to use it, why install it?
Perhaps you can explain where this idea comes from.
Of course, if I want to evaluate a daemon, I can --unpack the package
into /usr/local/testfun and manually enable it, evaluate it,
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:53:19PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
The idea was not to say that since I work for *a company* I'm an
authority. My point was that I work in the real world and have a
counter example.
And of course, everyone else on the list doesn't work in the real world,
and
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:53:19PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
The idea was not to say that since I work for *a company* I'm an
authority. My point was that I work in the real world and have a
counter example.
And of
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
And of course, everyone else on the list doesn't work in the real world,
and just plays in their own little pointless sandpit. Feh.
That *is* offensive.
Well, you know what? In many cases, it's true. I have seen many people in
the past few months
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:38:47PM -0400, Steve Willer wrote:
When someone writes things like:
well, bully for you. i guess that must make you so proud.
and
now what is so fucking difficult to understand about that?
the word deliberate isn't the first that occurs to me.
if you
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:52:59PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
You on the other hand show no thought for anyone else.
i show no regard for those who demonstrate they are fools. i show
contempt for those who demonstrate that they are annoying fools. guess
which category you fall into.
in
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
DON'T INSTALL THE DAEMON IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RUN IT.
WHY IS THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS SO FAR BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION?
i.e:
I've install postgresql on my home computer. I need this
daemon only sometimes. I don't want to start it every time
I reboot
* Piotr == Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piotr I've install postgresql on my home computer. I need this daemon
Piotr only sometimes. I don't want to start it every time I reboot
Piotr system.
Configure this in a runlevel. Debian doesn't predefine the use of
runlevels. If you start
* Craig Sanders said:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:39PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
I took care in my message above to remove anything offensive towards
Craig. Unfortunately Craig didn't do the same.
garbage. you went out of your way to be offensive. to quote the opening
line of
* Craig Sanders said:
and
now what is so fucking difficult to understand about that?
the word deliberate isn't the first that occurs to me.
if you can't comprehend that someone might deliberately choose those
words, then that is your problem not mine. such paucity of imagination
* Anthony Towns said:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:53:19PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
The idea was not to say that since I work for *a company* I'm an
authority. My point was that I work in the real world and have a
counter example.
And of course, everyone else on the list doesn't
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:05:22 +1000
From: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: How not to be a nice person (Was: Re: Packages should not
Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality)
Resent-Date: 2
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:10:23 +1000
From: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: How not to be a nice person (Was: Re: Packages should not
Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality)
Resent-Date: 2
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 20:06:10 +1000
From: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: The Doctor What [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: How not to be a nice person (Was: Re: Packages should not
Conflict on the basis of
Hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Piotr Roszatycki, Stardate 021099.1636:
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
DON'T INSTALL THE DAEMON IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RUN IT.
WHY IS THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS SO FAR BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION?
this is as wrong as it is loud
I've install postgresql on my home
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 04:36:04PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
I've install postgresql on my home computer. I need this daemon only
sometimes. I don't want to start it every time I reboot system.
you need to do something non-standard, so you should do a little bit of
work to accommodate
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:34:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 02:16:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
to paraphrase: i am against messing with the current default. i am not
against (indeed, i am in favour of) increasing choice.
There is currently no default -- it
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:21:09AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
I note that
### to run vtund as a server on port 5000, uncomment the following line:
#--server-- 5000
isn't uncommented by default.
it isn't useful to run
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:02:44AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, it's you who needs to wake up to the real world.
if people don't know how to administer a unix machine then they need
to learn fast.
Not true.
you
As a user, I have to say that the Provides/Conflicts that happens
with POP3 servers is annoying.
I wanted to look at each of ipopd, gnu-pop3d and cucipop. I could only
look at one at a time. It was ok in my case, because the machine I was
using has very little pop3 traffic. But it was
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:53:44AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
i'm talking about the current practice of postinst scripts in various
packages enabling the services that they provide (if any). i am not
talking at all about which packages are base or required or extra or
whatever - i'm talking
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
debian's attitude is: if you want something different, DIY. and more
importantly, it lets you DIY.
Err.. what Unix DOESN'T let you DIY?
Every Unix lets you DIY, of course. The problem is the *'/(%
configuration done by most all distributions and
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:38:55AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
The fantasy is over--WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! It turns out that some
people install Linux without preexisting knowledge of how to securely
administer a Unix machine.
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:02:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The Doctor What wrote:
Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to even
run *upon install*?
Because we need to decrease the number of questions asked at install time,
not increase it.
According to who?
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 03:13:36AM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
Excuse me. I work for TurboLinux.
i don't give a damn who you work for.
We make it an EXPLICIT policy to disable all daemons,
well, bully for you. i guess that must make you so proud.
if someone doesn't want a service
it isn't useful to run the vtund server until it is configured. there
is no standard configuration which is suitable for shipping as a
default - it MUST be customised for each site, each tunnel must be setup
individually.
When did useful enter this discussion?
pipsecd starts the daemon
[Craig flaming Doctor What deleted]
if someone doesn't want a service enabled then they should not install
the package that provides that service. if they want the service, then
install the appropriate package. simple. their choice to install or not
install.
now what is so fucking
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:47:24PM -0500, Eric Weigel wrote:
I wanted to look at each of ipopd, gnu-pop3d and cucipop. I could only
look at one at a time. It was ok in my case, because the machine I was
using has very little pop3 traffic. But it was awkward.
If I wanted to download source
the we-know-better-than-you attitude is what redhat and caldera (and
microsoft, for that matter) does. it sucks. debian has always done
better than that - our way is to encourage people to learn to do it for
themself by not trying to hide the fact that knowledge and experience is
required
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 08:50:00PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
the we-know-better-than-you attitude is what redhat and caldera
(and microsoft, for that matter) does. it sucks. debian has always
done better than that - our way is to encourage people to learn to
do it for themself by not
debian's attitude is: if you want something different, DIY. and more
importantly, it lets you DIY.
Err.. what Unix DOESN'T let you DIY?
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:26:39PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
debian's attitude is: if you want something different, DIY. and more
importantly, it lets you DIY.
Err.. what Unix DOESN'T let you DIY?
read the rest of my message. the bit that ranted about unix's that
get in the way of DIY. RH
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:57:53PM +1000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
One way to minimize the harm of unintentionally installed or
misconfigured daemons would be to add a default ipchain/ipfwadm policy
rejecting all TCP SYN (incoming initialization) and non-DNS UDP packets
except those from
read the rest of my message. the bit that ranted about unix's that
get in the way of DIY. RH is one. sun's Netra is another...both are
examples of how NOT to do configuration management on unix.
No. You're talking about doing something your way and then having
it wrecked by the RH/whatever
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
the we-know-better-than-you attitude is what redhat and caldera (and
microsoft, for that matter) does. it sucks. debian has always done
better than that - our way is to encourage people to learn to do it for
themself by not trying
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:45:13PM -0500, Francois Gurin wrote:
And why can't there be an option to determine this? You avoided that
point.
no i didn't. i answered it in another message.
to paraphrase: i am against messing with the current default. i am not
against (indeed, i am in favour
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:38:34PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
read the rest of my message. the bit that ranted about unix's that
get in the way of DIY. RH is one. sun's Netra is another...both are
examples of how NOT to do configuration management on unix.
No. You're talking about doing
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 02:16:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders was heard to say:
And if the package has a dependency?
There are many situations dealing with the package system that can
lead to daemons installing without your knowledge. mtools for potato
includes floppyd, if someone upgrades a
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, it's you who needs to wake up to the real world.
if people don't know how to administer a unix machine then they need
to learn fast.
Not true. Maintaining a unix-like machine for desktop or personal use
requires a
There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
I note that
### to run vtund as a server on port 5000, uncomment the following line:
#--server-- 5000
isn't uncommented by default.
There is currently no default -- it varies on a per-package basis.
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 09:21:29AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
I note that
### to run vtund as a server on port 5000, uncomment the following line:
#--server-- 5000
isn't uncommented by default.
Sure, but in the context
Or are you saying something else?
I was merely pointing out the irony of one of Craig's packages
not enabling the daemon by default.
no, but it should be pretty obvious from the description. e.g. a pop
server package is going to install a pop server. a web server package is
going to install a web server. etc. this should be self-evident.
True, but don't forget the case of an initial install - you pick some
profile, and
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 12:52:16AM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
no, but it should be pretty obvious from the description. e.g. a pop
server package is going to install a pop server. a web server package is
going to install a web server. etc. this should be self-evident.
True, but don't
ok. i just don't think it's as big a deal as some people do. more to the
point, i think that doing the opposite (i.e. not enabling services by
default when a package is installed) will cause even more problems (and
confusion and hassle) to everyone else.
i.e. there's a tiny minority who are
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 03:51:37PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 12:52:16AM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
True, but don't forget the case of an initial install - you pick some
profile, and get lots of stuff, with no hints. (In this case, I like
they idea of a debconf
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:31:05AM -0500, Francois Gurin wrote:
Minimun hassle/inconvenience is mutually exclusive of minimum harm.
Looking at the example set forth by some of the other distributions
(and more than a few operating systems), the reduced hassle of
installation and
Excerpts from debian: 29-Sep-99 Re: Packages should not Con.. by Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMO that's the price you pay for saying install a whole bunch of random
stuff i haven't personally selected. if you cared, you'd take the time
to vet all selections yourself.
In the initial install, is it
* Laurel == Laurel Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Laurel install)? The install program and the docs say skip the
Laurel Select step of dselect... Does it mean skip it because you
Laurel will confuse the installer or you should skip it because
Laurel it's already done?
The second is correct.
it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
Actually, it isn't -- there's an easy way of giving users a choice,
and two people have suggested it already (debconf). This seems to be
the most Debianish way to handle it - technologically superior, and
avoids punishing one
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:08:31PM -0400, Laurel Fan wrote:
Excerpts from debian: 29-Sep-99 Re: Packages should not Con.. by Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMO that's the price you pay for saying install a whole bunch of
random stuff i haven't personally selected. if you cared, you'd
take the
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:27:45PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
Actually, it isn't -- there's an easy way of giving users a choice,
and two people have suggested it already (debconf). This seems to be
the most Debianish
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:30:45AM -0500, Francois Gurin wrote:
Minimun hassle/inconvenience is mutually exclusive of minimum harm.
Looking at the example set forth by some of the other distributions
(and more than a few operating systems), the reduced hassle of
installation and
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:38:55AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
The fantasy is over--WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! It turns out that some
people install linux without preexisting knowledge of how to securely
administer a unix machine.
sorry, it's you who needs to wake up to the real world.
if people
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 03:21:34AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 01:05:58PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
then don't install those services. installing a package *IS* an explicit
OK.
You're saying that packages reliably say when they provide daemons?
no, but it should be
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
They both provide httpd; should I file bugs against them demanding that
they conflict with it too?
I think this is a good point; it doesn't seem to be a clear area
of policy. It sounds like perhaps some new system needs to be
implemented. Perhaps a
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
Perhaps there are people who want a service enabled by default policy,
and perhaps we should accomodate them. However, I'm not one of them
and I don't want any services turned on on some of my machines without
my explicit ok.
Yes, and I think this is
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:10:51AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Perhaps there are people who want a service enabled by default policy,
and perhaps we should accomodate them. However, I'm not one of them
and I don't want any services turned on on some of my machines without
my explicit ok.
then
What is wrong with the semantics of `dpkg --force-conflicts' as it
stands? That it confuses packages like `apt-get', whinging about
broken packages, or some other reason?
If both packages contain the same file with exactly the same
functionality, there is no problem.
However, if both packages
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are people who want a service enabled by default policy,
and perhaps we should accomodate them. However, I'm not one of them
and I don't want any services turned on on some of my machines without
my explicit ok.
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Brian May wrote:
However, if both packages contain a different implementation of the
same file (or even worse - a completely different program with the same
name), then things will break, depending on what order the
programs are installed in.
This is true, and would need
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:12:00PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
If you want to run two httpd's, popd's or mta's, you'll probably have to
do more than the usual tweaking to the package setup anyway, so what is
really the big deal of having to:
1. `apt-get source foo`
2. edit various
And of course you can always do dpkg --force-conflicts. I believe that's what
the --force commands are really there for: special situations.
Broken situations. Sure, you can --force dpkg to overwrite files
from another package. But Debian prefers to fix the problem instead.
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:13:27AM -0400, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
Okay, then solve the problem of which one should actually work on the
standard port? You can't use update-alternatives if the software is
launched in a different manner. If you have such an advanced setup, it
isn't really that
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:34:28PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
I do not like the idea of a daemon starting up with a default
configuration that I have not double checked upon installation. I
consider automatically starting with no choice a misfeature.
I think I agree.
I got a rude start
The Doctor What wrote:
Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to even
run *upon install*?
Because we need to decrease the number of questions asked at install time,
not increase it.
--
see shy jo
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:02:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The Doctor What wrote:
Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to even
run *upon install*?
Because we need to decrease the number of questions asked at install time,
not increase it.
How about add one
Also most daemons should fail binding to a port if multiple ones are installed
and they automatically
start. So unless they have conflicting files they shouldn't conflict. Instead
of conflicting
each package that suplies foo-daemon should just spit out an warning message on
install saying that
Seth R Arnold wrote:
How about add one question: Automatically start all daemons: [Y/n]
If they answer yes, then no questions. If they answer no, ask as many
questions as you want. :)
Of course, the downside of this particular question is ... not *all* daemons
should be automatically
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:02:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The Doctor What wrote:
Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to even
run *upon install*?
Because we need to decrease the number of questions asked at install time,
not increase it.
Bzzt. Security is
* Michael == Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:02:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The Doctor What wrote:
Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to
even
run *upon install*?
Because we need to decrease the number of
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 03:32:25PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bzzt. Security is more important than usability. We're not building
windows 2000 here...
Ii I install a daemon, I want to use it.
That doesn't account for daemons installed by default
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 10:11:17AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Ii I install a daemon, I want to use it.
Do you want it for personal use, or do you want it available as a
public service?
--
Raul
Joey Hess writes:
Ideally, if debconf were used, this one question would be asked the first
time you install a daemon, and all other daemons would inherit it
thereafter. Quite easily done with debconf..
That's the ideal, but what is the policy now? Should chrony ask a question
in its postinst
* Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 10:11:17AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Ii I install a daemon, I want to use it.
Raul Do you want it for personal use, or do you want it available as a
Raul public service?
If I install a finger daemon, I want it
The apparent solution to something like bug#45344 is to have all
the packages providing an identd to conflict with one another.
While reasonable in most cases, this has the horrible side effect
of not letting the administrator have multiple identds on the
system. What if I have a machine with
These packages don't conflict; they merely provide the same
service. There is no reason that these three packages cannot
coexist on the same system. Any namespace overlap can be
solved by alternatives or renaming, as such things are normally
rectified.
Debian policy should proscribe
Okay, then solve the problem of which one should actually work on the
standard port? You can't use update-alternatives if the software is
Well, I would prefer that things didn't start listening for connections
without asking first, but I can't imagine that that's a popular suggestion.
Okay, then solve the problem of which one should actually work on the
standard port? You can't use update-alternatives if the software is
Well, I would prefer that things didn't start listening for connections
without asking first, but I can't imagine that that's a popular
suggestion.
Of course. Now if you built them yourself, dpkg wouldn't touch them.
If I wanted to build them myself, I would use Slackware.
If I repackage them I will need to remove the Conflicts line from
the control files every single time I upgrade.
People who want such complex setups should have enough
Hi,
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
I run apache and roxen on the same machine. That's hardly typical.
Why on earth would anyone want to run two different web servers?
These two packages should obviously conflict since they're both
web servers and want to grab port 80.
I'd say that
If you want to run two httpd's, popd's or mta's, you'll probably have to
do more than the usual tweaking to the package setup anyway, so what is
really the big deal of having to:
1. `apt-get source foo`
2. edit various files, mostly in debian/
3. add an epoch to the package version
4.
Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These packages don't conflict; they merely provide the same
service. There is no reason that these three packages cannot
coexist on the same system. Any namespace overlap can be
solved by alternatives or renaming, as such things are normally
100 matches
Mail list logo
