[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unnecessary "Conflicts" with imap-server packages

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:15:36AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > Having a package installed doesn't mean the corresponding service is
> > started.
> If I install something then I want it installed, configured and
> running.

but you are not all users.  

> I think you are asking for another type of action for APT.  Currently
> APT has two types of remove.  You can remove leaving configuration
> files or you can purge taking off the configuration files too.  I
> think you are asking for a new type of install target where a package
> is only partially installed.  I could see the utility of that but
> there is no support for it in the code at this moment.

no, he was simply stating that there are cases where you want to install
a daemon, but not have it startup and run by default (or in other
cases with non-default options).  for example, maybe i want to install
multiple imap daemons because some users require a specific feature
from one and others from another.  as an admin why shouldn't i be able
to have both installed and configured to run on alternate ports?

the idea that one protocol server conflicts with another simply because
it refuses to be on a system where it might not be the one that
gets the default port is... well... dumb.

the appropriate response would be to have the postinst script be
unaffected by whether or not the service fails to start.  if you
want to be extra helpful you could try and detect for a failure and
spit out a warning, or even better provide a clean way to determine the
behaviour of the daemon when the package is installed.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: