Re: dh_installinetd

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Yes. A RFC-822-like file would probably be appropriate.
> 
> And this, it seems to me, is exactly how to get around the debhelper UI
> issues. If the updte-inetd programs use a common file like that,
> debhelper just installs it, and there is only one interface to learn.

Good point.

So what do people thing of this as a starting point?

--- cut ---
Service: kerberos-adm
Group: OTHER
Disabled: no
Type: stream/TCP/nowait
User: root
Group: root
Command: /usr/lib/heimdal-servers/kadmind
Parameters:
Maximum-Concurrent-Connections: 10
Changed: 0.0-1

Service: krb_prop
Group: OTHER
Disabled: yes
Type: stream/TCP/nowait
User: root
Group: root
Command: /usr/sbin/hpropd
Parameters:
Maximum-Concurrent-Connections: 1
Changed: 0.0-1
--- cut ---

Just some points:

1. The Type field might be better of as three fields. The contents of
this fields need to be such that it will work on any inetd daemon, I
only have inetd, so can't verify this off hand.

2. Presumably the user would still customize the /etc/inetd.conf
file or the /etc/xinetd.conf file.

3. The "Changed" field could be considered a hack, and some people might
not want it. The idea is though that if any of the details in the entry
have changed, the last version can be declared. update-inetd could be
told to rewrite the entry only if the previous version was too old.

4. I think tcpd is inetd.conf specific, so I would assume update-inetd
should add it as appropriate.

5. Maximum-concurrent-connections, IIRC is a parameter that can
be specified in xinetd.conf.

6. I have assumed that setting up xinetd.conf to listen only on
certain addresses, etc, is a system-admin function, and should not
be listed in above file.

Comments?
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>