On Mar 09, Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Has anyone considered writing such a beast?
You would make many more people happy by rewriting update-inetd first.
If you want to do this please talk to me and aj first, we both have
ideas and some code.
>For instance, using the code I stole from some other package,
>my maintainer scripts make it hard to re-add inetd entries if
>they were deleted for any reason (since it assumes that the
>operator deliberately deleted them).
This is also a problem for switching among different inetd daemons.
I think that any update-inetd rewrite would have to keep on the system a
database of the default configuration of each entry added by a package.
>Such a debhelper routine could also support xinetd and rlinetd, too.
>Initially this could be done by putting everything into the generated
>maintainer scripts, but eventually functionality could be split of into
>other packages, if desired.
Both me (openbsd-inetd maintainer, the successor to netkit-inetd) and
the xinetd maintainer agree that each package providing inet-superserver
should have its own specific version of update-inetd.
The common code is short enough that it's better to duplicate it than to
depend on a third package.
>- stream/dgram? TCP/UDP? wait/nowait? (not sure about this one).
This is definitely needed.