hi, On Do, 2007-12-06 at 14:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > i'd be open to hearing more on the matter, particularly use cases where > the current layout doesn't work. you mean more like: ltspfsd is a no-op without the xprop set by ldm or that we install our rc scripts into /usr/share/ldm/rc.d ? or the fact that even if the udev scripts are harmless, making it possible to install them in a normal system which is more vulnerable to security leaks forces us to put more ressources into security ? it think the recommends is totally justified here, at the current state ltspfsd wont work at all without ldm installed i'd even turn it into a dependency ... the split would allow developers to develop their own solutions without the udev and ldm overhead installed using ltspfsd-core, while i dont see a reason to enable normal users to install a non-functional ltspfsd package ...
note that in ubuntu ltspfsd even depends on ltsp-client to prevent the udev scripts being installed in normal systems (no matter if they are harmful or not, i just dont want them there since nobody ever tested how or if they interfere with existing rules and you can get unpredictable results) imho the split is a good compromise for us all, i could keep the dep tree in place i want, you could install without the metapackage if you urgently want the scripts in normal workstations, mario could work with only the core package and users would not be able to break ther systems accidentially. ciao oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part