Re: How not to be a nice person (Was: Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality)
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:10:23PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:06:59PM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:47:20PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > In short, a summary (admittedly from my point of view) follows:
> > In a discussion on whether network daemons should do one of the following:
> > a) Simply start up, grabbing any ports it needs (most do this)
> > b) Not start up (a few do this)
> > c) Ask about what ports to grab and whether to start up (some do this)
> >
> > This letter is to make it public that I think Craig has gone too far. He
> > has hurt my feelings and has been very insulting to everyone in
> > debian-devel. And this is not the way to get things done.
>
> Did you consider his point, though? Why would you install a service
> if you don't want it to run?
I can add I'm one of those who would prefer being asked. My configuration
is that I have network service on init 3 and 5, [xwgk]dm on 4 and 5. Sometime
I'm on a network, sometime I'm not. Having *any* service start automatically
can be as annoying as having to restart all services after each upgrade.
Given the possibilities that debconf give us, can't we consider to make it
a possible choice of medium priorities, the default being that each daemon
should (re)start themself? It's not as secure as it should be but is reasonable
and more insecure daemon (like date, echo, etc.) can use a greater priority.
>
> Hamish
> --
> Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD).
> CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Gris Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: