--jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:39:23AM +0000, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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: >=20 > > >> I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a= worthy > > >> goal for squeeze. >=20 > > > Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a superserver installe= d isn't > > > broken. Why should every daemon have to implement connection handlin= g when > > > they can offload that to the inetd? >=20 > > > Demoting inetd from standard to optional seems to me like a reasonable > > > release goal; that doesn't require patching lots of upstream code tha= t works > > > just fine the way it is already. In fact, AFAICS it doesn't require > > > patching any of our packages. >=20 > > Right, isn't that the proposal: demote inetd and update-inetd to > > optional/extra? >=20 > Perhaps I misunderstood, but I read this as a proposal to make /use/ of > inetd optional for the packages that currently depend on it. That's probably because of my broken english because what luk and you said was what I proposed: demote inetd to extra/optionnal instead of standard. It could make space on the CDs to more useful stuff e.g. --=20 =C2=B7O=C2=B7 Pierre Habouzit =C2=B7=C2=B7O madcoder@debia= n.org OOO http://www.madism.org --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkm27B0ACgkQvGr7W6HudhxQcACffurRGWhxiOprdDkorQJaFXJB 7usAniJ2EAUEMYIsPUTyst/s/tWnLqZF =qs4Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org