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

inet-superserver virtual package

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: