Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:04:28PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > So are you suggesting that every imap-server (for example) should be
> > split into two packages?
> >
> > Taken a step further this would include every server where multiple
> > implementations exist.
>
> I suggest to split all packages providing service(s) into one package
> containing the programs, documentation, examples, and one package
> setting up the default service(s) to be run automatically. See these
> threads
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00080.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01390.html
>
> I'm doing this for nearly all of the packages I maintain since years,
> works just fine.
You can José Fonseca (esmtp) seem to be the only ones.
> > Is this really a good idea?
>
> Yes, why not? It solves the OP's problem; it lets you install packages
> that provide a service without enabling the service automatically; it
> uses the dpkg dependency facility to show or solve conflicts; it adds
> flexibility, and avoids unnecessary conflicts.
>
> You might say it blows up the Packages file. Well, yes, but I don't
> think the scalability problem with the number of packages included in
> Debian should stop us developing good design choices, or adding new good
> quality packages to Debian. I'm confident the problem will be solved
> technically some day.
It's solved now - edit configuration files! It's not essential that
everything can be configured by adding/removing packages.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: