On Aug 30, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote: > 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. I can't see why this would be better. > 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. I do not believe this. xinetd and rlinetd need their own versions of the program anyway, so at best it could be shared by openbsd-inetd and inetutils-inetd. Coordinating the changes in a 13 KB code base among 2 or 4 maintainers is easy. > > 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? No. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature