[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: debian-devel
Subject: Re: inetd's status in Debian
From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder () debian ! org>
Date: 2009-03-10 22:39:26
Message-ID: 20090310223926.GA3649 () artemis ! corp
[Download RAW message or body]
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:
>
> > >> 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.
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.
--
·O · Pierre Habouzit
· ·O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
--
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]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic