Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality
- From: Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:21:01 -0400
- Message-id: <19991001102101.A3534@dman.com>
- In-reply-to: <19991001103151.D22298@taz.net.au>
- References: <19990929065601.B25093@taz.net.au> <email@example.com> <19990929155137.E30440@taz.net.au> <19990929063915.F19626@justice.loyola.edu> <19990930080532.D777@taz.net.au> <19990929234532.A15980@shot.org> <19990930141631.B12725@taz.net.au> <19990930083508.A32162@usatoday.com> <19990930092129.A11882@dman.com> <19991001103151.D22298@taz.net.au>
> 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
When did "useful" enter this discussion?
pipsecd starts the daemon automatically even though no tunnel has
been set up, and even if userlink-modules hasn't been installed.
And even though it is of absolutely no use to you, the daemon
starts running when you install the package. And if there's some
sort of exploitable back door in the code, you're vulnerable.
But fine, you think security is a non-issue.
You seem to recognize at least one situation where it is
counterproductive for Debian to make an assumption about the
user's configuration. Why can you not recognize others?