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 table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a > > > socket > > > after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above). > > > > Yes, but it isn't as clear cut as it looks given xorp can do mc routing > > or not depending on configuration (AIUI from the description). If that > > is the case, you may want to use xorp for some tasks and pimd for mc > > routing. > > They will conflicts as well if you enable mc routing in xorp, but I > would agree that we cannot just add static conflict between these to > packages. I would say, that we can safely assume, that if the user is > able to configure xorp she is capable of solving the conflict on MRT > access (e.g. by removing pimd or reconfiguring xorp).
No, I disagree here. With the same arguing mailservers would need no conflict with package "mail-transport-agent". Paraphrasing your wordings: If the user is able to configure postfix she is capable of solving the conflict on TCP listening socket on port 25 (e.g. by re-configuring the other daemons to use another port). The case with "mail-transport-agent" is more complex though, because it also involves a provider for the sendmail interface (ie. /usr/lib/sendmail). But you could also consider the arguing for packages conflicting with "pop3-server" and the like. 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). Regards, Micha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
