On 24/10/01, Sam Couter wrote:
> Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org> wrote:
> > That's not the only problem. Also g2s or to be exactly jnetd[0] uses
> > /etc/jnetd.conf[1] and update-inetd doesn't update that file. So if
> > someone is working on this issue, please keep in mind, that we should at
> > least support three different formats.
> Is it worth thinking about plugin type scripts or perl modules provided by
> each of the alternative inetd style packages? That way update-inetd can
> just run each of the plugins in a particular directory
> (/usr/share/netbase/update-inetd.d or similar).
The idea of having seperate modules, either in script,python,perl,c or some
other language, would be one of the best solutions. Since at least
inetd, xinetd and g2s have all a different format for there entries. And
maybe in the future we'll have another inetd replacement with another
fourth syntax. So having different modules handling the different syntax
flavours would be fine. But I'm not sure, if we really should keep those
modules inside the packages itself, which would then mean that every
developer has to keep track of it on his own, instead of having a
one debian package, where all possible modules are inside and which is
maybe maintained by the group of inetd maintainers.
> Those plugins shouldn't be too hard to write, and teaching update-inetd
> or DebianNet.pm to run them all would be trivial. The bulk of the code
> in DebianNet.pm would become the standard inetd plugin.
> So does that sound like a half-decent solution?
Yes, the general idea behind this, seems like a good solution. I think
the the details for the modules, the language to use and the decision
which packages include which part of this, would need to be discussed a
bit further.
Christian
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgpQUNl_8uBSq.pgp
Description: PGP signature