Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality
> ok. i just don't think it's as big a deal as some people do. more to the
> point, i think that doing the opposite (i.e. not enabling services by
> default when a package is installed) will cause even more problems (and
> confusion and hassle) to everyone else.
>
> i.e. there's a tiny minority who are inconvenienced by daemons being
> enabled when a package is installed. there would be a huge majority who
> would be inconvenienced if the reverse were true. it looks to me like
> it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
> at once - mutually exclusive needs) so it's a pretty easy choice to
> make...cause the minimum harm/hassle/inconvenience.
The capability to make that decision during package install needs
to be implemented, at the very least to take advantage of debconf.
The functionality could be standardized and implemented so that the
default is on par with debian policy.
This is a simple way of "satisfying both parties".
Minimun hassle/inconvenience is mutually exclusive of minimum harm.
Looking at the example set forth by some of the other distributions
(and more than a few operating systems), the reduced hassle of
installation and administration is traded for security (which I
hope most people will agree is harmful).
--francois
Reply to: