Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:06:34PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > 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 essential to have everything configured through configuration
files. I haven't heard any reason yet why splitting the packages would
be a bad thing.
And there's more advantages: it eases usage of different service
managers than sysvinit and init scripts, support of a different init
scheme can be done through an alternative package which 'provides' the
default *-run package; same for services running under a superserver,
and corresponding alternatives; it plays well with fully automated
installs; it separates services from programs.
Open projects at http://smarden.org/pape/.