Re: problem with update-inetd!
Quoting Paul Slootman <paul@wau.mis.ah.nl>:
> On Mon 07 Feb 2000, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Slootman <paul@wau.mis.ah.nl>:
> > > On Sat 05 Feb 2000, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could someone please explain this?
> >
> > > Anyway, the problem you're seeing is that if there's a disabled service
> > > in inetd.conf and you're adding a line for that service, the old one is
> > > explicitly re-enabled instead of using the supplied one. I think this is
> > > covered by the manpage entry for DebianNet (whose routines are used by
> > > update-inetd):
> >
> > Can't this be considered a bug? If I fix this, could it be included in the
> > next release? Hopfully the maintainer/author of update-inetd can fix it him/her
> > self, but.. :)
>
> Someone will probably step up and claim that it's an unmissable feature
> and he'll post a message to bugtraq or whatever if it's changed ;-)
Bah, who cares!?! A bug is a bug is a bug is a ... Never mind, I'll see if I can
fix it... I just wonder how many {post|pre}inst scripts that will break if this
is fixed?! :)
> FWIW I say the current behaviour stinks, not intuitive and should be
> changed.
Totally agree!
SEAL Team 6 Panama domestic disruption security CIA quiche Treasury
BATF fissionable strategic Waco, Texas FSF bomb Serbian Legion of Doom
Reply to: