Re: RFC: new update-inetd (use alternatives, drop .pl)
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Have reguluar inetd installed. Use xinetd for a very small subset of
> services. This currently works.
>
> Why can't there by a directory where internet-superservers place registration
> scripts, and each one gets called in turn?
Uh, because you'd have each superserver, that is n processes,
listening on the port you tried to register?
How about alternatives? Many things can provide it, only one is active.
netkit-inetd:
/usr/lib/netkit-inetd/update-inetd-backend
xinetd:
/usr/lib/xinetd/update-inetd-backend
/usr/lib/net-common/update-inetd-backend -> /etc/alternatives/update-inetd-backend
/etc/alternatives/update-inetd-backend -> /usr/lib/netkit-inetd/update-inetd-backend
Second point, _please_ drop the .pl from the name. It's an implementation
detail; this is unix, we don't have .COM, .EXE and .BAT
--
tv@{{hq.yok.utu,havoc,gaeshido}.fi,{debian,wanderer}.org,stonesoft.com}
unix, linux, debian, networks, security, | First snow, then silence.
kernel, TCP/IP, C, perl, free software, | This thousand dollar screen dies
mail, www, sw devel, unix admin, hacks. | so beautifully.
Reply to: