* Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) 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. Not good enough. Not even close. > > 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. meh, if the default install has all of the inetd services disabled then it's idiotic to have an inetd installed (and just fucking insane to actually have an inetd *running*). Things which need inetd *should* be required to Depend on it (or some virtual package which provides it). Packages which can run both with and without inetd could 'Suggest' the virtual inetd package. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature