[Pkg-ltsp-devel] Bug#480661: ltsp-server: ltsp "compiler" should not depend on daemons

[Vagrant Cascadian]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:01:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> I believe that either tftp server should be a dependency only of 
> >> -standalone (and the tools deal properly with it potentially missing 
> >> if they don't already) or that the chroot "compiler" should be 
> >> packaged in a separate "ltsp-server-core" or "ltsp-builder" package 
> >> that ltsp-server depends on.
> >
> >i've definitely pushed for a separate package in the past, although at 
> >this point i'll look into lowering *tftpd* to recommends for 
> >ltsp-server, and making it a dependency for ltsp-server-standalone.
> 
> Better than current, but why?

while certainly useful, i suspect that the proposed use-case is likely
infrequently needed. having the daemons listed as recommends will make
it possible to install without them, but by default the daemons will be
installed.
 
> I'd like to install "compilers" without such hosts becoming "servers".  
> That becomes tricky with your approach.

you simply need to install ltsp-server without the recommended
packages...
 
> What is the logic behind the current package split?  Why don't you like 
> the separate package approach anymore?

the logic is that ltsp-server-standalone depends on *all* of the
functionality, whereas ltsp-server will *typically* have most of the
core functionality(as recommends are pulled in by default), but allow
you to strip it down to a bare-bones if needed(by avoiding installation
or removing the undesired daemons).

that's my thoughts on the matter, but i'd be curious what the rest of
the pkg-ltsp team has to say...

live well,
  vagrant