[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: inetd's status in Debian
From:       Luk Claes <luk () debian ! org>
Date:       2009-03-10 6:31:35
Message-ID: 49B60947.4070201 () debian ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

>> I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
>> goal for squeeze.
> 
> Why?  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Having a superserver installed isn't
> broken.  Why should every daemon have to implement connection handling when
> they can offload that to the inetd?
> 
> Demoting inetd from standard to optional seems to me like a reasonable
> release goal; that doesn't require patching lots of upstream code that works
> just fine the way it is already.  In fact, AFAICS it doesn't require
> patching any of our packages.

Right, isn't that the proposal: demote inetd and update-inetd to
optional/extra?

Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]