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

Re: suggested virtual package name: dns-server

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 20:50, Steve Greenland wrote:

> > On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 18:25, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > > I'm stumbling across a load of dns server software that conflict in
> > > imho spurious ways with each other. 
> Spurious is exactly the right word to use, and the answer is not to have
> a dns-server virtual package to conflict with, but instead remove the
> conflicts. If the only reason they conflict is because they have the
> potential to listen on the same port, then they should NOT conflict. As
> someone else pointed out, most can be configured to listen on different
> ports, or different addresses, or both.
Then we need to make that policy, or at least "standard", and get rid of
all the equivalent packages such as "imap-server"; one I'm particularly
affected by -- needing both a standard and Maildir-enabled IMAP server
on different ports.

Go through the archive, whenever two packages (apache vs. thttpd,
uw-imapd vs. courier-imap, sendmail vs. exim) either provide the same
file or listen on the same <1024 port, we've provided a virtual package
and made them conflict.

If that's the right way (and I agree that's the right way for most users
- and therefore right) we *SHOULD* have a "dns-server" virtual package.

If it's not, we need to get rid of the others.

Scott James Remnant     Have you ever, ever felt like this?  Had strange
http://netsplit.com/      things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: