On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not* > depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the > availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer > scripts to run correctly. Again, the update-inetd interface is formally provided by inet-superserver and not by update-inetd. > But I would still like input on the use of this dependency for samba; I > rather expect we would get complaints if samba depended on inet-superserver > when it doesn't use it in the default configuration. Do not depend on the presence of /usr/sbin/update-inetd then. On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > Couldn't any inet-superserver package that provides its own update-inetd > also Provide: update-inetd? Wouldn't that fix the problem? It has to > Conflict with update-inetd anyway. I do not think that this corner case justifies such a change. If packages do not strictly need an inetd then they should just suggest inet-superserver. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature