Am 31.05.2010 10:27, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb: > On 05/27/2010 11:12 AM, Stefan Bauer wrote: >> Am 27.05.2010 11:05, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb: >> >>> We could also simply add a mutual Conflicts, as there seems to be no reason >>> to >>> have both racoon and openswan installed. Actually, quite a few years ago >>> (back >>> in freeswan days...) it was decided between all IPsec-ish package >>> maintainers >>> to Provide and Conflict with a virtual ike-server package. For some reason, >>> this seems to have been dropped. How about reviving this idea? >>> openswan and strongswan-ikev[12] still provide ike-server, but don't >>> conflict >>> with it at the moment. Shall we just change that (I would need to figure >>> out >>> how to do this with two strongswan binary packages that actually don't >>> conflict >>> with each other, though)? >>> >> I like it to give users the chance to decide if they want to have >> different software installed even if they serve the same purpose. So >> a conflict is not the best solution from my point of view. It might >> be handy to have both deamons installed alongside eachother for >> testing and stuff. Even tough this case is not happening quite >> often, it happens to the bug reporter. What is your opinion about that? >> > I'm not sure if anybody would want both daemons installed at the same > time - the bug report was created based on an automated installation > test, AFAIK.
Well ok. Let's take your ideas and use Provide and Conflict with a virtual ike-package. I will adjust the ipsec-tools/racoon package after i see your updated package in unstable. Might that be ok for you? Stefan -- Stefan Bauer ----------------------------------------- PGP: E80A 50D5 2D46 341C A887 F05D 5C81 5858 DCEF 8C34 -------- plzk.de - Linux - because it works ---------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
