On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Yes. A RFC-822-like file would probably be appropriate.
> And this, it seems to me, is exactly how to get around the debhelper UI
> issues. If the updte-inetd programs use a common file like that,
> debhelper just installs it, and there is only one interface to learn.
So what do people thing of this as a starting point?
--- cut ---
--- cut ---
Just some points:
1. The Type field might be better of as three fields. The contents of
this fields need to be such that it will work on any inetd daemon, I
only have inetd, so can't verify this off hand.
2. Presumably the user would still customize the /etc/inetd.conf
file or the /etc/xinetd.conf file.
3. The "Changed" field could be considered a hack, and some people might
not want it. The idea is though that if any of the details in the entry
have changed, the last version can be declared. update-inetd could be
told to rewrite the entry only if the previous version was too old.
4. I think tcpd is inetd.conf specific, so I would assume update-inetd
should add it as appropriate.
5. Maximum-concurrent-connections, IIRC is a parameter that can
be specified in xinetd.conf.
6. I have assumed that setting up xinetd.conf to listen only on
certain addresses, etc, is a system-admin function, and should not
be listed in above file.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>