[Pkg-ltsp-devel] Bug#454478: ltspfsd should not recommends ldm

[vagrant at freegeek.org]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:42:17PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> On Mi, 2007-12-05 at 16:09 +0100, Mario Izquierdo (mariodebian) wrote:
> > lstpfsd is used only in LTSP chroot and Recomends ldm package.
> > 
> > I'm working on new thin client implementation and try to put into Debian
> > officially. I don't need ldm login manager, only ltspfsd daemon.
> > 
> > Since some time, apt recommended packages are installed and
> > without extra configuration can install ltspfsd without ldm.

i would think changing the recommends to a suggests would be the most
appropriate thing here. maybe also an "enhances" field.

> well, i think ltspfsd will not work without the proper mcookie thats set
> by ldm anymore you will need any similar implementation in whatever you
> use instead, between the 4 and 5 series a lot of security changes were
> made that you will need to take into account, ldm brings parts of these
> in. 

that doesn't really change the nature of the bug report, only
implementation for other projects wishing to use ltspfsd.

> i dont see a reason why we shouldnt split the binary into ltspfsd-core
> and ltspfsd-scripts and an ltspfsd metapackage that depends on both.

> that way you could use the ltspfsd-core package which contains only the
> binary. it has the advantage that the scripts can be arch: all

i don't see a reason why we should split it really.

the ltspfsd package is quite small, so i wouldn't justify making an arch
all package on those grounds.

the udev scripts are essentially harmless now, even if there are some
cases where they wouldn't do anything useful.

i definitely don't see a need for splitting ltspfsd into three packages,
and don't support the idea of splitting out ltspfsd-core.

i'd be open to hearing more on the matter, particularly use cases where
the current layout doesn't work.

live well,
  vagrant