Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does
> *not* depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends
> on the availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its
> maintainer scripts to run correctly.
> The relationship with inet-superserver is therefore of a 'suggests'
> nature, but the relationship with the update-inetd interface is a hard
> dependency.
Yeah, remctl-server is in a similar situation. remctld can either run via
inetd or as a stand-alone daemon. The Debian package ships inetd
configuration via maintainer scripts, since that's what I expect most
users will want, but the relationship to inet-superserver is really more
of a Recommends than a Depends.
I may do something like:
Depends: update-inetd | inet-superserver
Recommends: inet-superserver
for it, I guess, but that seems very strange too.
Couldn't any inet-superserver package that provides its own update-inetd
also Provide: update-inetd? Wouldn't that fix the problem? It has to
Conflict with update-inetd anyway.
I have no idea how to write this as a lintian check, though, and still
catch the cases that Marco is complaining about. (I'm pretty sure the
long description of the current lintian tag is wrong, though, and I've
probably contributed to the problem because of that.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
