On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 21:10, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:08:54PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > > Therefore, I suggest that we separate each of these daemon packages into > > two, one that provides the daemon software and a separate one to run it. > > That way those of us who want to install a daemon and use it in our own > > way would not be hampered by someone's idea of how the daemon should > > normally be run. And where the daemon is packaged with a client, > > installing the client wouldn't cause an unwanted daemon to run. > > I agree. Having the programs and the service split into two packages > has another advantage, see this thread; it also points to few packages > already doing what you suggest > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/52773 I think that is another problem. Splitting of the init script still leaves the problem that all MTAs provide a /usr/sbin/sendmail link. I think here splitting may make sense, or maybe a scheme similar to /etc/alternatives. If all daemons could be disabled in /etc/init.d/ , it would be possible to use other schemes to start up services, eg. runit. or daemontools. If it is a unified way, this could be done by a simple script. If the daemon packages were split into two, it wouldn't be easy to 'just switch that service on/off', because I would have to install/reinstall the package that provides the init script. Sometimes I want to start a web server on my notebook, so others can download files, but I do not want that runnung all the time. I already installed file-rc, this seems to be a nice solution. Greetings, Oliver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part