[Re: Bug#66535: proposal of virtual package: syslogd]
Hello.
This list seems to be the right place for this ...
BTW: I'm on the list now.
----- Forwarded message from Arthur Korn <arthur> -----
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:28:59 +0200
From: Arthur Korn <arthur>
To: Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>
Subject: Re: Bug#66535: proposal of virtual package: syslogd
Hello.
Chris Waters schrieb:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 05:12:01PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
>
> First off, I don't think new virtual packages need a formal proposal
> or a bug report. It just says "discuss on debian-policy list".
Probably /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz
needs to be corrected then, because it says there:
:The procedure for updating the list is as follows:
:
:1. Post to debian-devel saying what names you intend to use or
:what other changes you wish to make, and file a wish list bug
:against the package debian-policy.
bash-2.03$ dpkg -s debian-policy
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
> That said, I think this is a fine idea. However, I'd rather see a
> better name. Most of the virtual packages have longish, descriptive
> names: ftp-server, not ftpd, or c-compiler, not cc. I'd rather have
> the virtual package be named system-log-daemon. Just a suggestion.
I think it would be even better to split up sysklogd into two
packages, and then have virtual packages like
'system-log-daemen' and 'linux-kernel-log-daemon' (or would
'kernel-log-daemon' be sufficient? Im thinking on the HURD).
This would make the syslog-ng maintainer happy, since syslog-ng
uses the klogd provided by syskolgd for kernel-logging. (msyslog
will have it's own input module im_linux).
I'm not on the debian-policy list. If you feel that this is
really needed, I'll subscribe it though. (In fact, im not even a
official maintainer yet, but my application is filed.)
ciao, 2ri
--
When you think that Big Brother is watching you, try boring him
to death.
----- End forwarded message -----
ciao, 2ri
--
"I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."
Reply to: