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:
pgp7djU7GJ9qi.pgp
Description: PGP signature