Am 27.05.2010 11:05, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb: > We could also simply add a mutual Conflicts, as there seems to be no reason > to > have both racoon and openswan installed. Actually, quite a few years ago > (back > in freeswan days...) it was decided between all IPsec-ish package maintainers > to Provide and Conflict with a virtual ike-server package. For some reason, > this seems to have been dropped. How about reviving this idea? > openswan and strongswan-ikev[12] still provide ike-server, but don't conflict > with it at the moment. Shall we just change that (I would need to figure out > how to do this with two strongswan binary packages that actually don't > conflict > with each other, though)?
I like it to give users the chance to decide if they want to have different software installed even if they serve the same purpose. So a conflict is not the best solution from my point of view. It might be handy to have both deamons installed alongside eachother for testing and stuff. Even tough this case is not happening quite often, it happens to the bug reporter. What is your opinion about that? Stefan -- Stefan Bauer ----------------------------------------- PGP: E80A 50D5 2D46 341C A887 F05D 5C81 5858 DCEF 8C34 -------- plzk.de - Linux - because it works ---------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
