[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent To Split: netbase

On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 01:08:47PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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.

I actually agree you on the point that they should be able to coexist, but
as we stand now, update-inetd does not support this kind of coexistance
properly.  Even worse, apparently one of those packages were going to run
run standalone, which would be a pain to handle.

Please also note that other daemons conflict with each other well, e.g.,
inn & cnews, sendmail & postfix.

> 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.

That's a totally different problem.  It can be easily solved by raising
its priority.  Although I haven't had any requests to do so up till now.
Do others feel the same way about this?
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Reply to: