Bug#392479: Request for virtual package ircd
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:46:39AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is yet another virtual package request I have some
> reservations about. There was a long thread on -devel starting at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/10/msg00483.html
>
> Several objections were raised:
> a) IRC services do not need to depend on a daemon (they may be
> remote). So it is unclear which problem an ircd virtual package
> would solve. There is no clear rationale provided with the bug
> report. Indeed, there is nothing in the archive that depends on the
> virtual package ircd.
> b) Multiple ircd daemons need not conflict with one another, since
> they can all be configured to run on different ports, so the
> conflict with and provide ircd scenario does not seem to come into
> play. There are legitimate use cases for having multiple ircd's
> installed (just like one may install multiple web servers)
This is an aside, but a case could be made for a system for packages
to register 'well-known' ports they bind to by default, similar to
the update-alternatives system. Thus at most one package would try
to bind to e.g. port 80 at any given time. This would avoid port conflicts
and race condition when two web servers are installed.
> c) In an email in that thread, the OP has conceded that the virtual
> package name might not be a good idea after all.
>
> So, there were few arguments made in favour of the virtual
> package, and there seems to have been a fairly strong consensus that
> the virtual package was not needed, and would provide no benefit.
>
> Given that, I would like to close this report, without providing
> the virtual package, unless some Rationale is provided.
I agree.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: