On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:04:28PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > > So are you suggesting that every imap-server (for example) should be > > split into two packages? > > > > Taken a step further this would include every server where multiple > > implementations exist. > > I suggest to split all packages providing service(s) into one package > containing the programs, documentation, examples, and one package > setting up the default service(s) to be run automatically. See these > threads > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00080.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01390.html > > I'm doing this for nearly all of the packages I maintain since years, > works just fine.
You can José Fonseca (esmtp) seem to be the only ones. > > Is this really a good idea? > > Yes, why not? It solves the OP's problem; it lets you install packages > that provide a service without enabling the service automatically; it > uses the dpkg dependency facility to show or solve conflicts; it adds > flexibility, and avoids unnecessary conflicts. > > You might say it blows up the Packages file. Well, yes, but I don't > think the scalability problem with the number of packages included in > Debian should stop us developing good design choices, or adding new good > quality packages to Debian. I'm confident the problem will be solved > technically some day. It's solved now - edit configuration files! It's not essential that everything can be configured by adding/removing packages. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
