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

Re: inet-superserver virtual package

On Aug 30, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:

> I'm not convinced that duplicating update-inetd in most of the
> inetd providing packages is a good idea, even if this would allow
> xinetd to be able to replace a normal inetd easily. I'd prefer that the
> odd cases override update-inetd, via a custom script that gets called
> if present from u-i or replace it or whatever.
I can't see why this would be better.

> Also in case the mythical rewrite happens it will be easier to
> coordinate just one instance than all of them, or to sync them if
> people start fixing their instances.
I do not believe this. xinetd and rlinetd need their own versions of
the program anyway, so at best it could be shared by openbsd-inetd and
inetutils-inetd. Coordinating the changes in a 13 KB code base among
2 or 4 maintainers is easy.

> > netbase then will temporarily depend on inet-superserver to allow smooth
> > upgrades until the other packages will switch to a dependency on the
> > virtual package[1][2].
> Do you mean only a depedency to the virtual package, w/o a real one?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: