Brian May <email@example.com> writes:
> We really need a constant way of dealing with this in package updates.
> Currently I have two very opposing views, and not entirely convinced
> in either of them.
> It seems to boil down to:
> * should packages disable inetd config entries on removal and in
> preparation for upgrade, and then reenable the entries after upgrade
> is complete?
> * what about entries that should be disabled by default? That is the
> maintainer has decided the majority of users will not need it?
> * is solving this worthy of etch?
> Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I used to have proftpd in inetd.conf but with a increase connection
limit value and on every update the update-inetd would complain that
the entry it expects differs from the one found.
That should be fixed if it isn't already.