Are't we confusing package management with service management? The purpose of packaging is to bundle software into a deployable unit for consumption by a package manager. RFC1340 is an internet standard saying "World Wide Web HTTP" can be served from port 80, and is neutral on service vendor. Until an RFC is published stating nginx, a service vendor, owns port 80 this remains a bug.
Keep package management and service management separate. Package nginx into a deployable unit consumed by package managers and measure packaging success/failure in those terms. Do not package nginx into a deployable service unit for consumption by a service manager, because this is beyond the scope of packaging. packages and services are different concepts. If nginx.service subprocess fails, why is this a concern for nginx packaging? Just print a message and get the package installed, that is the expectation. There are frameworks for service management/availability which can handle service stuff. Bottom line, this is a really really bad bug and not fixing goes against principles of choice, FOSS, etc. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1512344 Title: [Master Bug] Package nginx-* failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 (due to "Address in Use" issue) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nginx/+bug/1512344/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
