Re: Intent To Split: netbase
On 9 Aug 2000, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> > > making netbase an empty package which can be removed is the goal,
> > > isn't it?
> > No. Making it easier to keep uptodate with upstream, making it easier
> > to support Hurd, and giving away some of the bits of netbase is the goal.
> but there is nothing left in netbase except for some configuration
> files (/etc/protocols and /etc/services which should belong to the
> inetd package?
I don't see why e.g. /etc/services should belong to inetd package.
Suppose I have a firewall box: it does NOT run inetd, but I'd certainly
prefer to have /etc/services installed, for configuring ipchains or
Having a small package with the "basic" networking config files and their
manpages seems like a good thing to me. I don't fully understand Alex's
objection to this.