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

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: inetd's status in Debian
From:       Steve Langasek <vorlon () debian ! org>
Date:       2009-03-10 6:39:23
Message-ID: 20090310063923.GA8456 () dario ! dodds ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I read this as a proposal to make /use/ of
inetd optional for the packages that currently depend on it.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org


-- 
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]