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

Re: RFC: new update-inetd



On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 01-04-02 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 	Package: xinetd
> > 	Priority: extra
> > 	Depends: net-common
> > 	Provides: internet-superserver
> > 	Conflicts: internet-superserver
> Since you mention xinetd here, but not g2s, which is also a
> internet-superserver, do I need to change it like xinetd and will
> update-inetd in the new version also handle the config file format of
> g2s? 

All the internet superserver's will need to be changed; all the one's
that don't use the same config file format as netkit-inetd will need
to have an update-inetd-backend written too (which is what handles the
particular format for an inetd).

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpdex5h6brkG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: