Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 04:48:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> > The plan hasn't changed: "netbase" needs to be removed so we can avoid
> > requiring inetd on all systems [...]
> I don't understand what the reason for this could be...
Packages that need inetd Depend: on netbase, since netbase used to be
one big package that included an inetd and many other things. Changing
netbase to not include an inetd or Depend: on one breaks all those
packages in a way that can't be reasonably expressed through the
depends/conflicts/provides mechanisms we have. So netbase gets dropped,
and "net-common" (or "net-files" or some similarly named package
which does a fairly similar job to netbase) gets born, minus all the
dependencies that annoy people.
(If you meant the more general question: some people don't need inetd, and
it's fairly easy for us to give them a system without it, thus we should.)
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''