On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:28:35PM +0100, Marco d'Itri 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.
The idea behind my code is that it should be possible to adapt to
Then again, perhaps with a good update-inetd interface, there wouldn't
be so much need for dh_installinetd (but see my other E-Mail).
> 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.
This is probably a good idea, but then you need to get a set of fields
that are as common as possible between all inetd daemon, but as the same
time can be expanded to support extra futures that some might provide
> 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.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>