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 -- Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part