On 8/29/05, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:55:31AM +0000, 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 multiple > > > implementations exist. > > > > I suggest to split all packages providing service(s) into one package > > containing the programs, documentation, examples, and one package > > setting up the default service(s) to be run automatically. See these > > threads > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00080.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01390.html > > > > I'm doing this for nearly all of the packages I maintain since years, > > works just fine. > > You can José Fonseca (esmtp) seem to be the only ones. > > > > 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 automatically; it > > uses the dpkg dependency facility to show or solve conflicts; it adds > > flexibility, and avoids unnecessary conflicts. > > > > You might say it blows up the Packages file. Well, yes, but I don't > > think the scalability problem with the number of packages included in > > Debian should stop us developing good design choices, or adding new good > > quality packages to Debian. I'm confident the problem will be solved > > technically some day. > > It's solved now - edit configuration files! It's not essential that > everything can be configured by adding/removing packages.
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).