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

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: inetd's status in Debian
From:       Brian May <brian () microcomaustralia ! com ! au>
Date:       2009-03-11 22:22:50
Message-ID: 49B839BA.2020603 () microcomaustralia ! com ! au
[Download RAW message or body]

Roger Leigh wrote:
> I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
> config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
> simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
> be trivial for it to preserve user edits with this mechanism),
> and it would also be idempotent.  It has the benefits of simplicity
> and robustness, since it doesn't require calling a postinst script
> to run update-inetd with a specific (and limited) set of options.
> The current approach relies of update-inetd being hugely complex,
> when it really doesn't need to be.
>   

Ideally we need something that isn't specific to the format of
inetd.conf - last I checked some of our inetd's use different file
formats (e.g. xinetd).

-- 
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>


-- 
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]