Re: Request for virtual package ircd
"Jeremy Stanley" <email@example.com> wrote in message
[🔎] 20061012202658.GC26855@yuggoth.org">news:[🔎] 20061012202658.GC26855@yuggoth.org...
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:14:19AM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote:
Ok, this is a good argument.
I think the oppinion is more or less clear:
Some people think it would be a nice idea, BUT it can be also a problem
because some people want more than one Ircd on a system.
I only wanted to ask you for your oppinion, so thank you all! :-)
Maybe what you're looking for is a "Provides: irc-server" in the
ircd packages and a "Recommends: irc-server" or "Suggests:
irc-server" in the service packages that potentially benefit from
(but do not necessarily require) a locally-installed ircd to which
to connect? That way when someone installs the services via, say,
aptitude or synaptic, an ircd is pulled in automatically (if one is
not already installed) or at least mentioned as being suggested, but
multiple ircd packages providing irc-server could still be installed
on the same system since there is no conflict expressed.
That seems fine to me. Arguably, as mentioned in a different post the ftp
servers should do the smae thing instead of conflicting with each other.
Mail-tansport-agent should also do the same thing, using the alternatives
system to handle the multiple 'sendmail' binaries.
Conflicts on a virtual package by a package that provides it is generally
because often these is no valid technical reason to restrict the user to
only one of
the providers of that virtual package.