Re: Request for virtual package ircd

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>]

"Jeremy Stanley" <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote in message 
[🔎] 20061012202658.GC26855@yuggoth.org">news:[🔎] 20061012202658.GC26855@yuggoth.org...
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:14:19AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote:
> > Ok, this is a good argument.
> > I think the oppinion is more or less clear:
> >
> > Some people think it would be a nice idea, BUT it can be also a problem
> > because some people want more than one Ircd on a system.
> >
> > I only wanted to ask you for your oppinion, so thank you all! :-)
>
> Maybe what you're looking for is a "Provides: irc-server" in the
> ircd packages and a "Recommends: irc-server" or "Suggests:
> irc-server" in the service packages that potentially benefit from
> (but do not necessarily require) a locally-installed ircd to which
> to connect? That way when someone installs the services via, say,
> aptitude or synaptic, an ircd is pulled in automatically (if one is
> not already installed) or at least mentioned as being suggested, but
> multiple ircd packages providing irc-server could still be installed
> on the same system since there is no conflict expressed.

That seems fine to me. Arguably, as mentioned in a different post the ftp
servers should do the smae thing instead of conflicting with each other.

Mail-tansport-agent should also do the same thing, using the alternatives
system to handle the multiple 'sendmail' binaries.

Conflicts on a virtual package by a package that provides it is generally 
questionable
because often these is no valid technical reason to restrict the user to 
only one of
the providers of that virtual package.