Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality
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 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 global flag of "prompt me about daemon
> enablement", which is kind of the *reverse* of what most people want
> debconf for...)
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. if you don't care, accept whatever the
selection set gives you. if you discover later that you actually DO
care, then uninstall or disable the relevant package.
(generic "you" used in above paragraph, not referring to you personally)
> If you doubt that this is an issue, consider ipmasq: it was part of
> one of the standard install profiles, I don't even know which one --
> but it badly confused one firewall and at least two laptop installs
> that I know of personally, because it automatically enabled certain
> safety rules that were wrong in the non-masq multiple-interface case.
sounds like a bug in either the ipmasq package or in the selection set. or
both.
> The ipmasq maintainer has since made the rules for firing that much
> more rational, we did work out some reasonable approach which I forget
so it's solved. where's the problem?
> at the moment - I just want to bring it up as a point of actual
> experience with the initial install startup case...
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 inconvenienced by daemons being
enabled when a package is installed. there would be a huge majority who
would be inconvenienced if the reverse were true. it looks to me like
it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
at once - mutually exclusive needs) so it's a pretty easy choice to
make...cause the minimum harm/hassle/inconvenience.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: