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

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
On Do, 2007-12-06 at 14:47 -0800, vagrant at freegeek.org wrote:

> i'd be open to hearing more on the matter, particularly use cases where
> the current layout doesn't work.
you mean more like: ltspfsd is a no-op without the xprop set by ldm or
that we install our rc scripts into /usr/share/ldm/rc.d ? 
or the fact that even if the udev scripts are harmless, making it
possible to install them in a normal system which is more vulnerable to
security leaks forces us to put more ressources into security ? 
it think the recommends is totally justified here, at the current state
ltspfsd wont work at all without ldm installed i'd even turn it into a
dependency ... 
the split would allow developers to develop their own solutions without
the udev and ldm overhead installed using ltspfsd-core, while i dont see
a reason to enable normal users to install a non-functional ltspfsd
package ...

note that in ubuntu ltspfsd even depends on ltsp-client to prevent the
udev scripts being installed in normal systems (no matter if they are
harmful or not, i just dont want them there since nobody ever tested how
or if they interfere with existing rules and you can get unpredictable
results)

imho the split is a good compromise for us all, i could keep the dep
tree in place i want, you could install without the metapackage if you
urgently want the scripts in normal workstations, mario could work with
only the core package and users would not be able to break ther systems
accidentially.

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ltsp-devel/attachments/20071207/277773c3/attachment.pgp