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

Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 10:58:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > (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.)
> > I think that's the question I was asking; I guess I'm wondering about
> > practical cases where someone does need netbase, but not inetd.
> netbase is needed by anyone who uses networking basically -- it provides
> /etc/services, /etc/protocols, /etc/hosts, basic spoof protection,
> basic interface configuration, that sort of thing.

I guess I just don't think of inetd as terribly heavy.  It's easy to
turn off, and it's a small program.  Makes this seem like a lot of
work then, since we have all kinds of programs that *somebody* might
have no use for, but we don't bother trying to factor, say, fileutils
into a jillion different packages.

But, if you all want to factor inetd out, go ahead; it's not like I
think it's a bad idea.  Just seems kind of unnecessary to me.

Reply to: