Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:31 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote: So? It's up to the adminstrator to configure the packages after installation. The default of 0.0.0.0:80 may work as expected in some cases, but the package maintainer cannot guarantee this. And that has nothing to do with other installed packages. The maintainer just can't know what the administrator expects. Yes, this does go for the ftpds too. I don't see any reason why you'd want more than one, but I don't really see any reason to impose the restriction either. If the ftpds can be configured to listen to anything else than 0.0.0.0:21, then the administrator should be allowed to install more than one of them. A warning about the need for manual configuration in the case of a port/address conflict is probably a good idea, though. Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out of the box. Those users should be playing with gnome solitaire, not installing web/ftp servers. An (http|ftp)d is not a kind of works out-of-the-box thingy. The user installing a web/ftp server should be able to handle this situation. If s/he is not, then s/he should not install it (for security reasons, amongst others). Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it? So should we help the home user, at the expense of making the work of the administrator impossible? Instead of forcing the user to pop up Google and to improve his/her knowledge? Should we degrade the possibilities of Debian in the server area because of the home user who can this way save 5 minutes of googling? You can't be serious. Bye, - -- cc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFVQ39GJRwVVqzMkMRAuuGAKCZruDmNR2/ERUj1he/yOE5G9CqhACdHyYX j6YKLqmGdyTiHZAcdZfC3tA= =tCHB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:24:23AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:34:14PM +0100, Sz?kelyi Szabolcs wrote: can anyone tell why ftpds do conflict with each other and why httpds do not? Actually the httpds should conflict too as they install listeners on 0.0.0.0:80. That's total crap. I have one HTTPd running on port 80, and another running as a test on port 8080 somewhere. Unless you're telling me that FTPds cannot be configured to change their ports. But that would make them even more broken than they already are. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:34:14PM +0100, Sz?kelyi Szabolcs wrote: can anyone tell why ftpds do conflict with each other and why httpds do not? Actually the httpds should conflict too as they install listeners on 0.0.0.0:80. E.g.: With no httpd installed, install the apache package, apache will listen on 0.0.0.0:80; now install the thttpd package, it'll work fine, but no thttpd daemon will run afterwards, because it fails to bind to 0.0.0.0:80, see syslog; reboot the machine, and you'll be surprised to see the thttpd daemon run, and not apache, because thttpd gets started first. I still think this will fix such problems just fine: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg01314.html Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
Hello,
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:34:14PM +0100, Sz?kelyi Szabolcs wrote:
can anyone tell why ftpds do conflict with each other and why httpds do
not?
Actually the httpds should conflict too as they install listeners on
0.0.0.0:80.
E.g.: With no httpd installed, install the apache package, apache will
listen on 0.0.0.0:80; now install the thttpd package, it'll work fine,
but no thttpd daemon will run afterwards, because it fails to bind to
0.0.0.0:80, see syslog; reboot the machine, and you'll be surprised to
see the thttpd daemon run, and not apache, because thttpd gets started
first.
I still think this will fix such problems just fine:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg01314.html
I notice that the maintainer of msmtp has taken the route suggested
by Gerrit Pape. (Note the package msmtp-mta).
Another option is the one taken by {x,g,k}dm. There is an
alternatives-style setting that chooses the server one wants to run
by default.
One advantage of the former method is that you do not need to
co-ordinate this with other maintainers of similar servers.
One advantage of the latter method is that the users do not get
confused by one-more-package.
Regards,
Kapil.
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:34:14PM +0100, Sz?kelyi Szabolcs wrote: can anyone tell why ftpds do conflict with each other and why httpds do not? Actually the httpds should conflict too as they install listeners on 0.0.0.0:80. Nope, not IMHO. There are many perfectly valid reasons for running more than one httpd on a single machine. And even if you can't see one, why would you want to make it impossible (aka difficult)? E.g.: With no httpd installed, install the apache package, apache will listen on 0.0.0.0:80; now install the thttpd package, it'll work fine, but no thttpd daemon will run afterwards, because it fails to bind to 0.0.0.0:80, see syslog; reboot the machine, and you'll be surprised to see the thttpd daemon run, and not apache, because thttpd gets started first. So? It's up to the adminstrator to configure the packages after installation. The default of 0.0.0.0:80 may work as expected in some cases, but the package maintainer cannot guarantee this. And that has nothing to do with other installed packages. The maintainer just can't know what the administrator expects. Yes, this does go for the ftpds too. I don't see any reason why you'd want more than one, but I don't really see any reason to impose the restriction either. If the ftpds can be configured to listen to anything else than 0.0.0.0:21, then the administrator should be allowed to install more than one of them. A warning about the need for manual configuration in the case of a port/address conflict is probably a good idea, though. Bjørn -- Don't you realise that Heidegger's ghost is living in your punk haircut? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
On Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:31 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote: So? It's up to the adminstrator to configure the packages after installation. The default of 0.0.0.0:80 may work as expected in some cases, but the package maintainer cannot guarantee this. And that has nothing to do with other installed packages. The maintainer just can't know what the administrator expects. Yes, this does go for the ftpds too. I don't see any reason why you'd want more than one, but I don't really see any reason to impose the restriction either. If the ftpds can be configured to listen to anything else than 0.0.0.0:21, then the administrator should be allowed to install more than one of them. A warning about the need for manual configuration in the case of a port/address conflict is probably a good idea, though. Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out of the box. Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it?
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
On 11/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it? Why is the occasional user installing an ftp server for anyway? It's not a service you want to be installing without some basic knowledge. What is the actual risk? That someone not too knowledgable will try to install multiple servers and getting confused? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out of the box. Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it? None of the suggested solutions will prevent the packages from working out of the box. No further configuration is necessary as long as there is only one package providing the httpd service installed. The question is what to do when the adminstrator wants to install a second httpd package. Should the maintainer enforce a policy using conflicts, or should the adminstrator get to choose? Either way, you can't make it work out of the box. Your choices are a) allow it to work, depending on configuration b) deny it from ever working I prefer a). Bjørn -- No nukes! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
Em Terça 07 Novembro 2006 10:39, Bjørn Mork escreveu: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out of the box. Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it? None of the suggested solutions will prevent the packages from working out of the box. No further configuration is necessary as long as there is only one package providing the httpd service installed. The question is what to do when the adminstrator wants to install a second httpd package. Should the maintainer enforce a policy using conflicts, or should the adminstrator get to choose? Either way, you can't make it work out of the box. Your choices are a) allow it to work, depending on configuration b) deny it from ever working I prefer a). I prefer a) over b), but for the sake of completeness, we should point that there is third choice: c) allow it to work, automagically determining new ports For this to work, the user would have to choose which server is the main one. I don't know how hard it would be, and don't think it's very useful, but it's the perfect solution. Tiago Saboga. PS: IANADD.
RE: Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
The point is apt-get let me installed it with a warning, but doesn't want to let me install anything else without removing the conflicting package it accepted to install. E.g.: With no httpd installed, install the apache package, apache will listen on 0.0.0.0:80; now install the thttpd package, it'll work fine, but no thttpd daemon will run afterwards, because it fails to bind to 0.0.0.0:80, see syslog; reboot the machine, and you'll be surprised to see the thttpd daemon run, and not apache, because thttpd gets started first. So? It's up to the adminstrator to configure the packages after installation. The default of 0.0.0.0:80 may work as expected in some cases, but the package maintainer cannot guarantee this. And that has nothing to do with other installed packages. The maintainer just can't know what the administrator expects. Yes, this does go for the ftpds too. I don't see any reason why you'd want more than one, but I don't really see any reason to impose the restriction either. If the ftpds can be configured to listen to anything else than 0.0.0.0:21, then the administrator should be allowed to install more than one of them. A warning about the need for manual configuration in the case of a port/address conflict is probably a good idea, though. NOTICE: This email contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this transmission by mistake and delete this communication from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. AVIS: Le présent courriel contient des renseignements de nature privilégiée et confidentielle et nest destiné qu'à la personne à qui il est adressé. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous êtes par les présentes avisés que toute diffusion, distribution ou reproduction de cette communication est strictement interdite. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser immédiatement lexpéditeur et le supprimer de votre système. Notez que la transmission de courriel ne peut en aucun cas être considéré comme inviolable ou exempt derreur puisque les informations quil contient pourraient être interceptés, corrompues, perdues, détruites, arrivées en retard ou incomplètes ou contenir un virus.
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
On Tue November 7 2006 04:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out of the box. Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer the machines, and are probably much more knowledable, or the occasional, home or small office user that doesn't have the knoweldge or the time to acquire it? Those users should be using a derivative whose business is to help. another way to look at it... Should Debian force professionals to jump through hoops for the sake of users with limited knowledge and no inclination to learn about the system they are using. - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Gerrit Pape wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:34:14PM +0100, Sz?kelyi Szabolcs wrote: can anyone tell why ftpds do conflict with each other and why httpds do not? Actually the httpds should conflict too as they install listeners on 0.0.0.0:80. E.g.: With no httpd installed, install the apache package, apache will listen on 0.0.0.0:80; now install the thttpd package, it'll work fine, but no thttpd daemon will run afterwards, because it fails to bind to 0.0.0.0:80, see syslog; reboot the machine, and you'll be surprised to see the thttpd daemon run, and not apache, because thttpd gets started first. There was a saying a few years ago, that comes into my mind regarding this problem. It read something like this: Linux *is* user-friendly... not fool-friendly or looser-friendly. Now consider the two choices: a) keep Conflicts - Novice user not knowing what's happening exactly, tries to install two servers providing the same functionality. Installation will fail. User doesn't know why. - Experienced system administrator tries to install the two servers. He exactly knows what he wants. He won't be able to do so. Experienced system administrator gets mad. Someone mentioned earlier, he could rebuild at least one of the servers after removing the Conflicts field. Experienced system administrator gets madder. This problem typically arises in enterprise IT infrastructures, where recompiling the package every time it gets updated is *not* an option. Experienced system administrator gets absolutely mad. b) drop Conflicts - Novice user installs the packages in question. *If* he notices that there is some problem, looks at logs (as I remember, apache tells about the problem on the console, too), searches on Google, gets tons of results. After reading three of them, he knows what the problem is, he can fix it, he will *understand* what he's doing. User is happy. - Experienced system administrator installs the packages, reconfigures them to use different ports/interfaces/addresses. Experienced system administrator is happy. (*) IMHO, two servers binding to the same socket by default, is not enough reason for them to conflict with each other. Let me remind you that the case of MTAs is another story. Bye, - -- Szabolcs -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUPFhGJRwVVqzMkMRAnJwAJsFMFC1fofF/FpxjQDhPHXyU1Ze2wCfWayB muzY+HC+iCUMAX782xZDfT4= =Lp4Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts
Tiago Saboga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I prefer a) over b), but for the sake of completeness, we should point that there is third choice: c) allow it to work, automagically determining new ports For this to work, the user would have to choose which server is the main one. I don't know how hard it would be, and don't think it's very useful, but it's the perfect solution. well, you don't know that the adminstrator wants to run the servers on different ports. s/he might want to run them on the default port, but binding to specific, different, ip addresses. Bjørn -- If you've seen one source license, you've seen them all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
