Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages
On 8/29/05, Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> 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
default).
Reply to: