Re: inet-superserver virtual package

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 12:27:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 28, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Just yesterday night dato raised the issue on #d-release, and I was
> > telling about the virtual package, and that we could move to it now,
> > and worry later about a possible transition to that new update-inetd
> > (if it happens to exist some day), aj was fine with that.

> OK, but then let's do it right.
> The idea is to move update-inetd from netbase to each one of the inetd
> packages (openbsd-inetd, inetutils-inetd, rlinetd, xinetd), which will
> provide the inet-superserver virtual package and depend on a version of
> netbase which does not have update-inetd (is a Replaces needed too?).

I'm not convinced that duplicating update-inetd in most of the
inetd providing packages is a good idea, even if this would allow
xinetd to be able to replace a normal inetd easily. I'd prefer that the
odd cases override update-inetd, via a custom script that gets called
if present from u-i or replace it or whatever.

Also in case the mythical rewrite happens it will be easier to
coordinate just one instance than all of them, or to sync them if
people start fixing their instances.

> netbase then will temporarily depend on inet-superserver to allow smooth
> upgrades until the other packages will switch to a dependency on the
> virtual package[1][2].

Do you mean only a depedency to the virtual package, w/o a real one?

> [2] At the same point we should argue about the tcpd dependency too,
> currently most packages rely on netbase pulling it. I see arguments for
> both having the inetd depend on it if needed (some directly use libwrap)
> and having the server packages depend on it if needed (some do not
> actually use it). I favour the first option, BTW.

Yes we could do that at the same time. And I prefer the first option
as well.

regards,
guillem