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: