Re: Intent To Split: netbase
Herbert Xu <email@example.com> writes:
> John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > packages, splitting up netstd into many tiny packages, and splitting
> > up netbase are all bad ideas.
> If netstd weren't split up, all the plethora of finger daemons,
> ident daemons and what not would've had to gone through the kind
> of ritual torturing endured by packages that replaced part of the
> old netstd package had.
There is no reason that there would have had to be any conflict at
all. The various fingers should not conflict with each other
(although I note that some of them erroneously do anyway) -- one
should be perfectly able to have more than one on the machine at
once. Just make sure they don't trample over each other in the
filesystem and you're find.
> Not to mention how painful it would've been to construct nfs-kernel-server
> with nfs-user-server still part of netstd.
I agree it probably made sense to split that part out. However we now
have a situation where such basic things at traceroute are not
installed by default, which is a horrible shame.
John Goerzen <email@example.com> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <firstname.lastname@example.org>