Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:41:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:29:20AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > files. I haven't heard any reason yet why splitting the packages would
> > be a bad thing.
> > And there's more advantages: it eases usage of different service
> > managers than sysvinit and init scripts, support of a different init
> > scheme can be done through an alternative package which 'provides' the
> > default *-run package; same for services running under a superserver,
> > and corresponding alternatives; it plays well with fully automated
> > installs; it separates services from programs.
> These problems should be solved by discussion and generation of a
> policy. IMHO it would be better to have a consistent approach that
> didn't solve every problem (or had some other flaw) than to have
> each individual developer generate their own scheme.
Well, as far as my experience goes, simply discussing things doesn't
work out. It stops at some time, and almost never reaches a real
solution. Better introduce a technical solution that actually works,
and then come up for discussion. If you re-read this thread, you see
the different opinions on how services and conflicts should be used, and
how my recommendation, already implemented in packages I maintain,
solves all this.
I still haven't heard any reason yet why splitting the packages would
be a bad thing, and tried to show the lots of advantages.