On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:01:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > >On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of > >> -standalone (and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing > >> if they don't already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be > >> packaged in a separate "ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package > >> that ltsp-server depends on. > > > >i've definitely pushed for a separate package in the past, although at > >this point i'll look into lowering *tftpd* to recommends for > >ltsp-server, and making it a dependency for ltsp-server-standalone. > > Better than current, but why?
while certainly useful, i suspect that the proposed use-case is likely infrequently needed. having the daemons listed as recommends will make it possible to install without them, but by default the daemons will be installed. > I'd like to install "compilers" without such hosts becoming "servers". > That becomes tricky with your approach. you simply need to install ltsp-server without the recommended packages... > What is the logic behind the current package split? Why don't you like > the separate package approach anymore? the logic is that ltsp-server-standalone depends on *all* of the functionality, whereas ltsp-server will *typically* have most of the core functionality(as recommends are pulled in by default), but allow you to strip it down to a bare-bones if needed(by avoiding installation or removing the undesired daemons). that's my thoughts on the matter, but i'd be curious what the rest of the pkg-ltsp team has to say... live well, vagrant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
