On Aug 28, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote: > Just yesterday night dato raised the issue on #d-release, and I was > telling about the virtual package, and that we could move to it now, > and worry later about a possible transition to that new update-inetd > (if it happens to exist some day), aj was fine with that. OK, but then let's do it right. The idea is to move update-inetd from netbase to each one of the inetd packages (openbsd-inetd, inetutils-inetd, rlinetd, xinetd), which will provide the inet-superserver virtual package and depend on a version of netbase which does not have update-inetd (is a Replaces needed too?). netbase then will temporarily depend on inet-superserver to allow smooth upgrades until the other packages will switch to a dependency on the virtual package[1][2]. This introduces a dependency loop, if somebody really believes that it is a bad idea then a Conflict can be used (it's reasonable to expect that something else will depend on netbase anyway). [1] Then netbase should be promoted to required priority since just about everything depends on it. [2] At the same point we should argue about the tcpd dependency too, currently most packages rely on netbase pulling it. I see arguments for both having the inetd depend on it if needed (some directly use libwrap) and having the server packages depend on it if needed (some do not actually use it). I favour the first option, BTW. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature