On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:20:06AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:53:50PM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > > What do you guys think? It seems to me that it should be a > > pretty reasonable thing to push into the next upload. > > The clients are not interchangable, as they have different > interfaces (see #113620). etherconf should depend on an > alternative of the clients it supports.
Your reasoning is backwards. x-terminal-emulators and mail-tranfer-agents aren't interchangeable either, and have different command line interfaces or configuration file formats. A lot of the time, though, that simply doesn't matter. The correct solution IMO is to have the virtual package and define a baseline set of functionality if necessary. Packages with more specific requirements of a DCHP client can depend only on the clients they support. Packages that require little of, and are truly agnostic about, the DHCP client should not have to enumerate every DHCP client in the distribution in their dependency information. Otherwise everyone who depends on a DHCP client has to rev their package when a new DCHP client is added to the distro. If we handle dhcp-client as we do other virtual packages, the specific knowledge is expressed where it is needed (i.e., "my package can use udhcpc and nothing else" ), and not everywhere *except* where it's needed. #113620 has little to do with this. ifupdown declares no dependency on any DHCP client. That it did not properly support udhcpc has nothing to do with package dependencies and thus nothing to do with virtual packages. -- Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB Consultant | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C Progeny Linux Systems | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
