Re: icmp-logger virtual package
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Hugo Haas wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > Someone thought there was a problem? What kind of problem was that? Can
> > you reproduce it? Is it serious? I doubt adding a virtual package just
> > because someone _thinks_ there _might_ be a problem is a good idea. Not
> > that I'm against adding a virtual package for these packages, but I think
> > there should be good reasons to do it.
>
> Well, he had installed iplogger and jail and the messages appeared twice
> (that was normal because he had two different daemons).
>
> There's no point in installing jail _and_ iplogger, because they're doing
> the same job (well, iplogger also has an additionnal TCP event logger, but
> as far as ICMP packets are concerned, icmplog and icmplogd more or less
> identical).
>
> We proposed this virtual package to avoid to confuse users.
Ok, it would make no sense to install both of them. But what do you want
to do with the virtual package? I don't think they should conflict with
the virtual package if it's not needed. They shouldn't conflict just
because it makes no sense to install both.
Remco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: