On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:41:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:29:20AM +, 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
>
Brian May wrote:
> Would it be feasible to have something like "update-alternatives", but
> instead of managing files in the file system, it allocates port
> numbers?
Something like that would be nice. Sporadically there have been
complaints from people who want multiple sendmail MTAs installed.
> "Daniel" == Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Daniel> As I understand Brian's idea, this would just be a way
Daniel> of allowing daemons to cohabitat in their default
Daniel> configuration. The administrator would be free to
Daniel> override the defaults in any wa
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:49 am, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2005, at 10:31, Brian May wrote:
> > Would it be feasible to have something like "update-alternatives", but
> > instead of managing files in the file system, it allocates port
> > numbers?
> >
> > That way every service
On Aug 30, 2005, at 10:31, Brian May wrote:
Would it be feasible to have something like "update-alternatives", but
instead of managing files in the file system, it allocates port
numbers?
That way every service that listens on port, for example 143, will be
registered, but only one will be "ac
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> These problems should be solved by discussion and
Hamish> generation of a policy. IMHO it would be better to have a
Hamish> consistent approach that didn't solve every problem (or
Hamish> had some other flaw) than
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:15:36AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > Having a package installed doesn't mean the corresponding service is
> > started.
>
> If I install something then I want it installed, configured and
> running.
>
I'm sorry, but I think this is completely
Perhaps we need some sort of a "weakly conflicts". Sort of the inverse of
"recommends".
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:15:36AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > Having a package installed doesn't mean the corresponding service is
> > started.
>
> If I install something then I want it installed, configured and
> running.
but you are not all users.
> I think you
On lun, 29 ago 2005, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > Having a package installed doesn't mean the corresponding service is
> > started.
>
> If I install something then I want it installed, configured and
> running.
>
> I think you are asking for another type of action for APT. C
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Having a package installed doesn't mean the corresponding service is
> started.
If I install something then I want it installed, configured and
running.
I think you are asking for another type of action for APT. Currently
APT has two types of remove. You can remove l
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:29:20AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:06:34PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > quality packages to Debian. I'm confident the problem will be solved
> > > technically some day.
> >
Il giorno lun, 29/08/2005 alle 12.16 +0200, Olaf van der Spek ha
scritto:
> It's not solved.
> There are still daemons that conflict with eachother 'just' because
> they wish to listen on the same port or use the same directories (by
> default).
Which makes no sense, and I think this is an abuse o
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:06:34PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > 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 a
On 8/29/05, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +, 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?
> > >
> > > T
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +, 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 multipl
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:04:28PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > "Gerrit" == Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerrit> Gerrit> bincimap-run package provides the virtual package
> Gerrit> ``imap-server'' and conflicts with other packages
> Gerrit> providing ``imap-server''
On 8/25/05, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Gerrit" == Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Gerrit> Gerrit> bincimap-run package provides the virtual package
>Gerrit> ``imap-server'' and conflicts with other packages
>Gerrit> providing ``imap-server''. This ens
> "Gerrit" == Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gerrit> bincimap-run package provides the virtual package
Gerrit> ``imap-server'' and conflicts with other packages
Gerrit> providing ``imap-server''. This ensures that bincimap is
Gerrit> the only service that listens on
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:14:33PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> $ sed -ne '19,$p' The bincimap-run package provides the virtual package ``imap-server'' and
> conflicts with other packages providing ``imap-server''. This ensures that
> bincimap is the only service that listens on the address 0.0.0.
On Tue, August 23, 2005 14:14, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> $ sed -ne '19,$p' The bincimap-run package provides the virtual package ``imap-server'' and
> conflicts with other packages providing ``imap-server''. This ensures
> that
> bincimap is the only service that listens on the address 0.0.0.0:993 on
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:32:15PM +0100, Edward wrote:
> Is it necessary for the following packages to "Conflict" with the
> virtual package "imap-server":
>
> bincimap-run
> courier-imap
> cyrus-imapd(*)
> cyrus21-imapd (*)
> dovecot-imapd
> mailutils-imap4d (*)
> uw
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 12:32 +0100, Edward wrote:
> My humbly proposed fix: remove the "Conflicts: imap-server" from these
> packages, and make the postinst / init scripts more robust to the
> failure mode where an imap-server is already running / listed in
> inetd.conf.
Why not do dpkg -i --force-
23 matches
Mail list logo
