Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the
>> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be
>> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, rather than
>> the dependencies of lots of packages).
> Maybe, but I have never heard of this exception to the rule.
Me either. This would be a good thing to file as a Policy bug if you
think it should change (I'm sorry about the lack of progress on that
front; I've been trying to find time to take the next step on the open
Policy issues for three weeks and failing so far, but I still have good
intentions).
> It could also be argued that it's time to demote *inetd packages as
> optional.
I agree with this. We're fast getting to the point where the average Unix
server doesn't need it, let alone desktops.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: