On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:41:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:29:20AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > files. I haven't heard any reason yet why splitting the packages would > > be a bad thing. > > > > And there's more advantages: it eases usage of different service > > managers than sysvinit and init scripts, support of a different init > > scheme can be done through an alternative package which 'provides' the > > default *-run package; same for services running under a superserver, > > and corresponding alternatives; it plays well with fully automated > > installs; it separates services from programs. > > These problems should be solved by discussion and generation of a > policy. IMHO it would be better to have a consistent approach that > didn't solve every problem (or had some other flaw) than to have > each individual developer generate their own scheme.
Well, as far as my experience goes, simply discussing things doesn't work out. It stops at some time, and almost never reaches a real solution. Better introduce a technical solution that actually works, and then come up for discussion. If you re-read this thread, you see the different opinions on how services and conflicts should be used, and how my recommendation, already implemented in packages I maintain, solves all this. I still haven't heard any reason yet why splitting the packages would be a bad thing, and tried to show the lots of advantages. Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
