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

Re: dh_installinetd

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
any interface.

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
over others.

> 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 <bam@debian.org>

Reply to: