Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:58:41PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > The point is that with the *default* configuration unbound does not > > complete the installation when another name server is installed. And > > this could be considered a serious bug. > > ok. you would prefer that the unbound p

Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > At least in three cases (ftpd, httpd, radius, telnetd) currently is > used a virtual package. So probably it is the most appropriate choice > in respect with current policy. there are two protocol speaking over 53/udp; the recursive service (rd==1) offered by recurs

Bug#500176: closed by Robert Edmonds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons)

]> by > replying to this email. > > > From: Robert Edmonds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons > > Francesco

Bug#500176: It does not conflicts with bind and other ns daemons

Package: unbound Version: 1.0.2-1 Severity: normal As in subject, it fails at startup when installed after bind. It seems appropriate proposing a virtual package (dns?) and finding agreement among all name server maintainers (bind*, djbdns, etc.) about that, following policy best practice. -- S