-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
retitle 609864 override: smcroute:net/extra
reassign 609864 ftp.debian.org
thanks
Hi Julien, hi Antonin,
Am 13.01.2011 12:18, schrieb Julien BLACHE:
> The proper thing to do here is to demote smcroute to Priority: extra and
> leave pimd at Priority:
Micha Lenk wrote:
Hi,
> I think the core point is: If the *default configuration* of the multicast
> routing packages in question cause access to the MRT, then it should conflict
> with other packages (which do so in their default configuration too).
The default configuration can be changed by
Hi all,
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:59:56AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > >> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> > >> be installed at the same time either.
> > >
> > > They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
> > > routing ta
Hi all,
thanks for a nice lift off.
* Julien BLACHE [2011-01-13 18:44] wrote:
> Good; priority should be given to a "real" mc routing daemon, ie what
> the user expects to get when she installs multicast-routing-daemon.
This will definitely work for me.
> >> The pimd/xorp situation should be i
Micha Lenk wrote:
Hi,
> Thus I maintain my suggestion to add Provides:/Conflicts: dependencies to a
> virtual package (e.g. 'multicast-routing-daemon', but feel free to suggest
> another name).
You make a valid point wrt the kernel interface and I fully concur.
>> The proper thing to do here i
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:18:49PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as
> > (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that
> > both
>
> smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :)
>
Micha Lenk wrote:
Hi,
> This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual package such as
> (the currently not yet existing package) 'multicast-routing-daemon' that both
smcroute is *NOT* a multicast routing daemon :)
A multicast routing daemon is a daemon that manages the multicast
Hi Antonin,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:37:36AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote:
> I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and
> smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as
> conflict to pimd.
This is fine with me, but shouldn't we instead use a virtual
Package: smcroute
Version: 0.94.1-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
I've received about dozen 'bug reports' about the fact, that pimd and
smcroute cannot be used in parallel. I've decided to add smcroute as
conflict to pimd.
Both packages are currently 'optional', so adding the conflict violates
policy:
h
9 matches
Mail list logo
