Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages
On 8/29/05, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
It's not solved.
There are still daemons that conflict with eachother 'just' because
they wish to listen on the same port or use the same directories (by