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

Re: dh_installinetd

On Mar 10, Brian May <bam@debian.org> wrote:

 >> 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).
It would still be useful to not force the maintainer to add all the code
needed to start/restart on install/upgrade/etc.
*Please* do not write anything which will cause the current update-inetd
to stay around longer.

 >> 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.
Yes. A RFC-822-like file would probably be appropriate.


Reply to: