[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#2133: inetd(8) doesn't say whether/when looping services reenabled

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Peter Tobias writes:
> > The next netbase package uses (a patched version of) the latest FreeBSD
> > inetd. It doesn't support the ".max" suffix anymore (it uses a global
> > command line option instead). The behaviour is also documented in the
> > manpage:
> ...
> IC, thanks.
> I think this is something of a shame, actually, that it will no longer
> support the .max suffix.  There are some services that one might well
> want to specify a different maximum number for - certainly there are
> systems in the University here that function less well than they might
> because their inetd doesn't have this feature.

Is it really important to have different maximum numbers? Normally you
don't need this feature. If you get the "loop" errors you slightly
increase the value and it'll work. Maybe the FreeBSD people thought
the same.

> Why are we switching to the FreeBSD inetd ?

We don't have to switch to the FreeBSD version. The new version contains
few bug fixes and support for the TCPMUX service. But if nobody wants
the new version I'll leave the old inetd in the netbase package.

If you want to test the new inetd I could upload a binary (or the source)
to ftp.debian.org or I could send you a copy via email.


 Peter Tobias                                EMail:
 Fachhochschule Ostfriesland                 tobias@et-inf.fho-emden.de
 Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informatik   tobias@perseus.fho-emden.de
 Constantiaplatz 4, 26723 Emden, Germany

Reply to: