Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 10:58:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.