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

[Vagrant Cascadian]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:14:29PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:23:33AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51:40AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> 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).
> 
> I do understand how dependencies work.  My question was about the 
> _intend_ of the chosen dependencies.  

i guess i should have higlighted *core* as well... anyways thanks for
nudging me to spell this out:

my *intent* is that the ltsp-server-standalone provides a complete LTSP
server, with remote devices, remote sound and dhcp, and that those
features are not optional. it ensures that the bells and whistles are
available.

the ltsp-server package provides a basic ltsp server, providing the
services necessary to network-boot thin clients, making it possible to
install only the additional features desired. it provides the core
functionality of ltsp, which includes network booting and networked root
filesystem.

the descriptions for both packages clearly need updating to reflect
that, as they were written when ltsp-server-standalone merely included
an additional dependency on a dhcpd.

...snip...

> If you do not want to expand with a new binary package, then how about 
> lowering daemon dependencies to suggests for the ltsp-server package?

after reading the descriptions for suggests and recommends in
debian-policy 7.2:

     `Recommends'
          This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.

          The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
          together with this one in all but unusual installations.

i believe recommends would be more appropriate, as the default behavior
in the most common cases still allows for unusual cases where you don't
want any daemons installed. if those unusual cases were more common, i'd
consider splitting it into a separate package.

live well,
  vagrant