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

Re: Status of inetd for etch

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:34:39AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> > Why, for the love of Cthulhu, does netbase depend on inetd in the first
> > place?  Let's see:
> Historical reasons.
> > Now, let's see what depends on *-inetd:
> Under the current rules these packages are buggy, unless they have a
> *specific* reason to depend on a specific inetd.
Right, that's why a generic "inetd" virtual package would be a good idea.

> > It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all.  Those
> No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.
Just like they used to be supposed to have telnetd or csh.

But even if it is left as priority:standard, it obviously shouldn't be
depended on by netbase.  I don't have portmap installed anywhere either --
but it at least can be easily ripped away, even though nfs deserves to be on
an Unix system a lot more than inetd does.

1KB		// Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
		//	Never attribute to stupidity what can be
		//	adequately explained by malice.

Reply to: