Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] a cold wind bloweth
From: tkaczma@gryf.net
Date: Wed Jun 09 1999 - 16:24:14 EDT
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Michael Han wrote:
> The point is that if you distribute a precompiled binary of netatalk,
> TCP wrapper support is a *compile-time* option. Once you've got a
> built binary, you can't go back and add the support for wrappers
> (actually, I think you can, but not the easy way). So does the package
> builder assume the package installer wants security or doesn't want
> it?
Hmmm, can you compile it for TCPwrappers and not use it? How hard is it
to add TCPwrappers support programatically. If one can run netatalk
compiled for TCPwrappers without TCPwrappers installed then that's how it
should be distributed. If one can't run it in this manner but you can add
it later then there should be another package which either has just the
deltas or a complete package. Otherwise it should be distributed with and
without TCPwrapper support. TCPwrappers themselves should not be
distributed in the same package with netatalk.
> Good package management systems allow a system to declare
> dependencies. netatalk should be distributed built with wrappers, and
> simply require wrapper support and declare this fact through the
> package dependency.
I'm not too familiar with RPMs, but elswhere there is a clear distinction
between a dependency and a prerequisite. I'll leave enumeration of
differences as an exercise to the reader. I think that a weak case could
be made for making TCPwrappers a dependency, but definitely not a
prerequisite.
Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:48 EST