Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:46:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>> 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.
>> The difference is that fileutils doesn't offer services to other hosts
>> on the network.
> I should have said it's easy turn inetd off. Oh wait, I did say that.
Hello,
Am I right that today (woody) disabling inetd reliably that it is not
startet on package upgrades requires messing with /etc/init.d/inetd
(removing or exit 0) causing unwanted questions from dpkg when the
maintainer changes /etc/init.d/inetd, because invoke-rc.d is not used
yet?
cu andreas
Reply to: