Re: xinetd vs. rpc.portmap
> Wow, this made me pretty much doubt Debian's quality:
> I'm running hamm (i386) with xinetd-2.2.1-1 and netbase-3.03-1
> installed i was almost going crazy because i just couldn't figure
> out why neither telnet nor ftp wanted to run at all, wasting two
> hours and a few downloads for unnecessarily reinstalling said
> packages, until i finally found out what was really wrong.
> I tracked down the problem to "/etc/init.d/xinetd" silently failing
> (which is actually a bug by itself) because of the entry "test -f
> /usr/sbin/rpc.portmap || exit 0" and no "/usr/sbin/rpc.portmap"
> existing. The latter has been renamed to "/usr/sbin/portmap" by
> the maintainer of netbase. I've looked at the bug database and
> found out that this is in fact a *long* standing bug of the xinetd
> package (http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/12/12021.html). The bug
> report is not only coming with a nice fix but is already 169 days
> old, which IMHO is way too much for such an essential package.
> On the other hand i'm not so sure if not possibly the netbase
> package should be considered the culprit for changing
> /usr/sbin/rpc.portmap to /usr/sbin/portmap and thus breaking
> packages relying on it.
> I think this should really be fixed ASAP.
I am working on the new version of xinetd, sorry for the
Boris D. Beletsky email@example.com
Network Administrator firstname.lastname@example.org
Berger Financial Research, email@example.com
IBM Building Home: +972 2 6411880
Tel-Aviv Israel Work: +972 3 6944218
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .