Bug#118608: PROPOSAL] New virtual package radius-server
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 08:04:41AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Francesco" == Francesco Lovergine <lovergine@iesi.ba.cnr.it> writes:
>
> Francesco> All this programs provide a RADIUS server for
> Francesco> acct/auth. Generally the daemon is named radiusd and
> Francesco> uses standard portsi 1645/1646, but this is not a major
> Francesco> constraint. This has the same goal of a vp like httpd:
> Francesco> they all provide (almost) the same services, but not
> Francesco> necessarily the same commands, files or so on.
>
> Francesco> -- Francesco P. Lovergine
>
>
> Except in the case of httpd, on a Debian system, I can guarantee that
> in the default configuration files I stick in /var/www will be served.
>
> How would this VP be useful?
>
Not configuration files, only web pages are in /var/www, and not
necessarily all functionalities could be present (cgi, server-side-include, etc.)
for files there (in fact a new httpd-with-cgi is proposed).
And not all other features (eg. ip/named virtual hosting).
So, also in the case of httpd: How is that VP useful :) ?
Or in the case of telnet-server: what are your certainties? That it
provides a telnet protocol server on port 23/tcp, and that's all.
In the case of a radius-server you could be
sure that basic RADIUS protocols (as specified in a couple of rfcs) are
provided. So, if telnet-server exists as a VP, why not a radius-server?
It's better than the current status anyway, i.e. conflicting binaries
(and ports) are provided and none can install a couple of
radius-servers AFTER downloaded them due to this... IMHO a VP
is the only clean way to fix this status of things.
cheers
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: