Re: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:07:02AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> [Please excuse my terseness. I'm learning the Dvorak keyboard
> and this makes me economize my words even more than usual.]
So come back to the QWERTY dark side. Quicker, easier. :)
> > If we handle dhcp-client as we do other virtual packages, the specific
> > knowledge is expressed where it is needed (i.e., "my package can use
> > udhcpc and nothing else" ), and not everywhere *except* where it's
> > needed.
>
> This compatibility does not currently exist. udhcpc, for
> instance, will by default not exit unsuccessfully if it fails to
> obtain a lease. Other clients use a different option to control
> this, or do it by default. Similarly for choosing which
> interface to configure.
It's my contention that for the purposes of a virtual package, this
simply doesn't matter. postfix, sendmail, and exim exhibit different
behaviors as well; that doesn't make them non-mail-transfer-agents.
Perhaps you're thinking of alternatives, where command-line
compatibility -- at least to some defined extent -- is required.
> > #113620 has little to do with this. ifupdown declares no dependency on
> > any DHCP client. That it did not properly support udhcpc has nothing to
> > do with package dependencies and thus nothing to do with virtual
> > packages.
>
> I was citing it as an example of how widely the interfaces
> differ, not of how the dependencies should be handled.
So you have no objection to a dhcp-client virtual package, then?
--
Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
branden@progeny.com | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Consultant | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
Progeny Linux Systems | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: