Re: RFC: new update-inetd
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Malcolm Parsons wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:07:22PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> >Well telnetd should be loverd. Just my opinion though. I never use
> >> >it on any system personally.
> >> But it's replacement (ssh) is not capable of being priority standard in
> >> main.
> >It is quite capable of being priority standard in main, in fact it is.
> >non-US is still main, and can be legally used by everyone.
> No, it's not. non-US/main is still non-US. Look in the Policy Manual
> section 2.1.2. The things that provide internet-super-server should all
> reside in main, and it's policy (2.1.2 again) that nothing in main should
> require dependencies outside main.
On the contrary, there's nothing in policy that prevents a package in
non-US/main (or even non-US/non-free) from providing a virtual package
that's also provided by something in main. The requirement is that nothing in
main can have dependencies on anything outside of main... if there's a
candidate inside of main that supplies the necessary virtual package, that's
all we need for main to be self-contained.
But I don't think that's the issue here; I don't imagine the ssh packages are
going to claim to provide internet-super-server any time soon. The question
is whether having sshd in non-US/main with priority 'standard' will satisfy
the need for a remote administration protocol in the base system, to which I
think the answer is no. If this functionality is important enough to merit
'standard' priority in main, then it should be a lot harder for a new user to
castrate his system than by neglecting to include non-US in his sources.list.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: