On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 02:47:28PM +0100, Simon Bazley wrote:
> papd and afpd won't work without atalkd,
> and I would guess all users of netatalk that would want a package,
> would want the afpd side of things primarily.
Mostly. But there may be users that are only interested in papd.
Or only in afpd.
> Only serious administrators (who would get the source anyway)
Strange assumption. Serious administrators will be very happy
to be able to use a packaging system. Especially if they are
maintaining a lot of systems.
> would want to use only the papd daemon.
> I can't see any time the atalkd daemon would not want to be used.
I don't want to use the atalkd on my systems. None of the Macs I
maintain can't handle AFP over IP. And according to what I've heard
on this mailing list, MacOS X can't handle EtherTalk anymore, either.
> Asside from that however, is there any reason why the netatalk.conf
> file couldn't be allowed to contain all the configuration options.
Is there a reason why it should? It would only complicate matters.
Currently, we have three different config files for three completely