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.
Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
