On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:42:17PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: > On Mi, 2007-12-05 at 16:09 +0100, Mario Izquierdo (mariodebian) wrote: > > lstpfsd is used only in LTSP chroot and Recomends ldm package. > > > > I'm working on new thin client implementation and try to put into Debian > > officially. I don't need ldm login manager, only ltspfsd daemon. > > > > Since some time, apt recommended packages are installed and > > without extra configuration can install ltspfsd without ldm.
i would think changing the recommends to a suggests would be the most appropriate thing here. maybe also an "enhances" field. > well, i think ltspfsd will not work without the proper mcookie thats set > by ldm anymore you will need any similar implementation in whatever you > use instead, between the 4 and 5 series a lot of security changes were > made that you will need to take into account, ldm brings parts of these > in. that doesn't really change the nature of the bug report, only implementation for other projects wishing to use ltspfsd. > i dont see a reason why we shouldnt split the binary into ltspfsd-core > and ltspfsd-scripts and an ltspfsd metapackage that depends on both. > that way you could use the ltspfsd-core package which contains only the > binary. it has the advantage that the scripts can be arch: all i don't see a reason why we should split it really. the ltspfsd package is quite small, so i wouldn't justify making an arch all package on those grounds. the udev scripts are essentially harmless now, even if there are some cases where they wouldn't do anything useful. i definitely don't see a need for splitting ltspfsd into three packages, and don't support the idea of splitting out ltspfsd-core. i'd be open to hearing more on the matter, particularly use cases where the current layout doesn't work. live well, vagrant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
